1951-10-16

Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):: On a
question of privilege, the rules of the house have been changed to a certain extent, and frankly I do not agree with it, but I should like to know whether, with the exception of members of the government and the leaders of the various opposition parties, hon. members are to be permitted to read their speeches, which is contrary to the rules.



THE LATE LIAQUAT ALI KHAN


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, members of the house will have heard this morning of the death of the Hon. Liaquat Ali Khan, Prime Minister of Pakistan, who was shot while addressing a public meeting at Rawalpindi, Pakistan. I was shocked to learn, as I am sure all other hon. members were, of this terribly tragic event. I had met Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan on a number of occasions, and happily recall being host to him during his visit to Canada in the spring of 1950. Hon. members will recall the occasion when he spoke so eloquently to both houses of parliament in this chamber at the end of May, 1950, on the subject of Pakistan, the commonwealth and the future.
I have already expressed personal sympathy in a message to the Begum Liaquat Ali Khan, and I would beg leave to move, seconded by the leader of the opposition, that, as a token of our sympathy for the Begum and her family and for all the people of this sister state of the commonwealth we rise in this chamber and stand for a moment in respectful silence.
Accordingly the house rose and stood in silence.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in seconding the motion and in joining with other members in this tribute to the memory of a very great citizen of his own country and of the commonwealth, I simply wish to join with the Prime Minister in expressing the deep regret that all of us must feel not only that a man charged with great responsibility at a time like this
should have lost his life in this way Dut also that we in Canada should have lost a friend who declared that friendship in the most vigorous terms when he spoke to us in the House of Commons a little more than a year ago. I think to all of us it must have been one of the most heartening moments in the memory of those who have heard representatives of other governments express their opinions here, to hear the head of one of the new sister dominions assert in such unqualified terms his faith in the continuing greatness of the commonwealth of which Pakistan was proud to proclaim itself a part.
In regretting his untimely death, in joining with the Prime Minister in the expression of sympathy he has conveyed to the Begum, I think it would also be well for us to realize the strange and dangerous pattern that is emerging and not to ignore the likelihood that this is part of a great design which has as its ultimate purpose the destruction of our free world. I feel sure that if his death serves to emphasize to all of us the significant events that have been taking place in the east, marked by other assassinations as well, perhaps he himself would not have felt that death under such circumstances had been in vain.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: May I join with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in associating our party with the sentiments that have been expressed. All I wish to say is that I think at this critical time in world affairs the world can ill afford to lose a statesman as constructive as the late Prime Minister of Pakistan.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, we wish to associate ourselves with all that has been said. We express our very sincere and deep regret at this untimely demise.


Mr. Speaker:: By standing in respectful silence as all members did, the motion is unanimously carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I answered in a preliminary way a question by the leader of

Ming Sung Industrial Company the opposition in connection with the government's guarantee of the loan by Canadian banks to the Ming Sung Industrial Company Limited. As I indicated, the company defaulted on the instalments of principal amounting to a total of $1,248,174.78 due to the banks on June 30, 1951, and on the quarterly Interest payment due on September 20, 1951, amounting to a total of $86,769.87. The banks have called upon the Canadian government to implement its guarantee in respect of these defaulted payments and the government has done so.
As security against this loan to the Ming Sung company, the banks hold mortgages on the vessels concerned. As I mentioned yesterday, the banks have been requested to institute appropriate legal proceedings under these mortgages. I understand that these proceedings are under way in Hong Kong, the port from which these vessels operate.
The leader of the opposition also asked whether the company has taken action to avoid seizure of their ships. I am not aware that the company has taken such action, but I am informed that the crews on the ships are now refusing to make return sailings to Hong Kong.
The leader of the opposition has asked, as well, whether any steps have been taken to prevent the use of the Canadian flag on these vessels. The mortgages on the vessels now held by the banks, and under which the banks have been requested to take legal proceedings, were given by the company and registered after the vessels came under the Canadian flag. In fact, it was only under these circumstances that properly registered mortgages *could be obtained. As the government has requested the banks to enforce their rights -under the mortgages in Hong Kong, hon. members will appreciate the doubtful wisdom *of causing a change in the status of these -vessels as British vessels at the inception of the legal action before the whole matter, including the effect of such a change on the legal proceedings, has been fully considered.
The representative of the Ming Sung company has requested an interview with Canadian government representatives. When the whole situation has been discussed with the company I will report further to the house within a few days.


George Alexander Drew: May I ask a supplementary question? In view of the fact that the crews have now displayed their real loyalty by hiding in a communist port, at the moment conditions make it possible to secure the return of the ships will the government discontinue the use of the Canadian flag on these vessels?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have endeavoured to deal with this question in an objective way. I have nothing to add to the statement I have just made.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Cenire):: Will the Minister of Finance inform us of the date that the government made good the default of the Ming Sung corporation to the banks, and when did the government instruct the banks to take proper legal action in order to recover on the securities?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Speaking from memory, Mr. Speaker, the delay to which the Ming Sung company was entitled under the contract expired on October 8 or it may have been October 9. I am speaking subject to correction on that. The government gave immediate instructions to the banks to take the proper action when the delay to which the company was entitled had expired.


George Alexander Drew: The Minister of Finance has spoken of delay. On what day was the government informed of the default in respect of which certain concessions were made?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Speaking again from memory, the payment to which I refer fell due on June 30. Under the contract the company had ninety days within which to cure this default before legal action could be taken by the banks. Perhaps I might add that it was indicated prior to the expiry of that delay to which the company was entitled that the default might not be cured within that time. Proper consideration was given prior to the expiry of the date as to what action could be taken, so there was no delay in initiating such action.


John George Diefenbaker: One other question. Is the Minister in a position to say how many times, during that period of the ninety days after June 30, those ships were within Hong Kong jurisdiction?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, I am not.


Mr. Fleming:: Will the minister state
whether under the contract the default in principal and interest has the effect of accelerating the maturity of the entire indebtedness?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid I shall have to look at the contract again to answer my friend's question. Speaking from memory, I think not.



ANGLO-EGYPTIAN TREATY QUESTION AS TO POSITION OF CANADA REGARDING ABROGATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: May I direct a question to the Secretary of

State for External Affairs? What position is the Canadian government taking with regard to the abrogation by Egypt of the Anglo-Egyptian treaty, and the threats to the United Kingdom and the British commonwealth?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The situation in the area to which my hon. friend's question refers is a difficult one indeed at the moment, and highly inflammable. I do not think any statement from me at this time in answer to a question will be helpful. I shall take that question as notice, however, and if anything can usefully be said, I shall say it at the first opportunity.



SMALL LOANS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question based on a report in a recent issue of the Monetary Times, a clipping from which I have sent to the Minister of Finance. Is the government permitting small loan companies, such as those that charge interest rates which amount to 18 per cent per year, to expand their facilities and operations despite the government's policy of restricting credit generally?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I thank my hon. friend for sending me notice of the question. No doubt owing to our experimental changes in the rules, I received it only a few moments ago. I have not been able to inform myself on the matter, but I shall try to give a;n answer tomorrow or as soon as possible.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: May I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs? In view of the many developments in international relations since the last sitting of parliament, will he state whether or not it is the government's intention to set aside an early date when these may be discussed?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I believe there will be an opportunity for discussing international matters during the present session at a not too distant date. I do not know myself when that date will be, but I hope it will be before too long.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Gordon Graydon: The minister may not feel like answering this question, and if he does not I shall understand. During this debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, is it his intention to give any detailed information with respect to international affairs?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have not made up my mind yet whether or not I shall speak in this debate. I would ask my hon. friend to curb his impatience for a few days.



SETTING UP OF DEFENCE EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: In view of the levity of the minister for external affairs in regard to the last question, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that there is to be no budget, with a consequent lack of opportunity to discuss the affairs of the departments, will he agree to indicate to us within the next few days what statements we shall hear from the ministers of the crown in order to avoid unnecessary anticipation by any speaker in the debate of a discussion which will be taking place? I should like also to ask the Prime Minister something that arises out of the events of today which have occurred in Pakistan and also in Egypt. Will he answer the proposal which I put forward yesterday concerning his agreement to setting up a defence expenditures committee?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: With respect to agreeing to set up a committee on defence expenditures, that will be agreed to in due course. I will not say it will be agreed to at this special session, because I do not think there would be time to get very far with that in view of the other matters that have to be dealt with. Hon. members have to realize that everything cannot be done at the same time. This session is a special session, as to the utility of which the hon. gentleman was not convinced yesterday when he spoke in the debate on the address. But it is not going to be possible to do at this special session everything that this country must deal with in the next year or two.
With respect to a committee on defence expenditures, it is the intention of the government, as was announced at the last session, to have the kind of committee that dealt with defence expenditures during the last war.
As to the other matters, I shall be glad to confer with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and with the leaders of the other groups and try to arrange with them for

The Address-Mr. Gillis opportunities to discuss matters which, if such opportunities were not arranged, might be considered as proper matters for discussion on a motion to adjourn the house. I shall be glad to confer at the earliest possible date with my hon. friend in that regard and with the leaders of the other parties to see if we cannot fix, with due notice in advance to hon. members of the time they would take place, such debates as will be felt to be necessitated by the circumstances of these times. If it will suit the hon. gentleman and the leaders of the other parties in that regard, I will see if we cannot arrange something that will enable us to bring before the house, after notice, such matters as the public would consider we should discuss at this time.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the suggestion that we meet to plan the discussion of various important subjects which will obviously be in the minds of members as the ones which should be discussed at this time. I shall be happy, as I am sure will the others, to meet the Prime Minister at any time that he indicates; but I would point out that the committee to which the Prime Minister has referred and which was set up earlier-that is, set up either at the close of the last war or immediately afterwards

was a committee dealing with defence contracts. What we have been asking for is a committee on defence expenditures, which in the very nature of its inquiry would be able to discuss the general provisions that were being made for defence through those expenditures. I recognize that this is not a subject for debate at this point in the proceedings, nor is there any motion before us under which to discuss it. But I would repeat my urgent request to the Prime Minister and point out that world events at this moment suggest that now, above all other times, is the occasion to set up a committee in which members may meet to play their part in ascertaining what is actually being achieved by the defence expenditures in this country.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we can pursue this matter further when we get together to discuss the fixing of the time for appropriate debates in the house.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, October 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Robert Cauchon for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, last evening when the house adjourned, I made a few observations with regard to the throne speech. Before beginning what I have to say on the matter this afternoon, I should first like to say this. In view of the solemn note on which this house opened this afternoon, and having regard to the fact that what is happening in the rest of the world has a serious impact on this country, it is rather difficult to say to the government the things that one would like to say. Realizing the many complex problems confronting them that arise outside the country and over which they have little jurisdiction, one finds it rather difficult to kick the government around too hard on domestic issues. Perhaps I am going to be a little bit kind to them at this time.
As to the throne speech itself and the subject matter now before the house, the government recognizes that the matter of inflation is worthy of serious consideration. They have indicated that fact by placing it fairly well to the top of the throne speech. While recognizing that inflation is perhaps the number one issue in the country, I am just going to place on the record what they intend to do about it. According to the throne speech all they intend to do is this. They say:
The government has received an Interim report from the committee studying the combines legislation recommending that suppliers of goods should be prohibited from requiring or including distributors to resell such goods at fixed or minimum resale prices. You will be asked to consider legislation arising out of the committee's interim report.
As far as the government is concerned at the present time, and as far as the members of this house are concerned, there is from the government no proposition in the matter of controlling prices. They merely say that they have received a report and that at some time during this session legislation will be brought forward upon which the members of the house will base an opinion.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) also recognized that inflation is the number one issue in the country because he moved an amendment to the throne speech on that particular subject; and if he did not consider it the number one issue in the country, he would not have moved that amendment. The amendment is in these terms:
We respectfully represent to Your Excellency that in the opinion of this house adequate steps should be taken to combat inflation and deal effectively with the high cost of living.
While the government are still in the process of making up their minds on the question, on the basis of the committee's report that they have received, the leader of the opposition is in pretty much the same

The Address-Mr. Gillis
position as the government. He recognizes the problem but he merely recommends to the government that adequate steps should be taken. There is nothing definite there. There is nothing specific. He suggests to the government no mechanics by which the desired results might be brought about. The amendment of the leader of the opposition is all right, to the effect that adequate steps should be taken. The Prime Minister can vote for it.


Howard Charles Green: How about you?


Clarence Gillis: Yes, we can vote for it. It is merely a matter of determining what is adequate. That is just what I am afraid of, having regard to the attitude of the Prime Minister on the subject. As usual, this group have recommended something. The leader of the C.C.F. group or the chief spokesman of the group moved, to the amendment made by the leader of the opposition, a subamendment recommending:
That the amendment be amended by adding thereto, immediately after the words "high cost of living," the following words:
such as the making of provision for price controls and the payment of subsidies, where necessary, so as to equalize the sacrifices our people are called upon to make at this time.
The only specific thing before the house at the present time on the matter of inflation is that short amendment made by the chief spokesman for this group. He has at least had the courage to say that he thinks the device of controls of essential commodities in this country, plus the use of subsidies, will work and can do something about the present inflationary trends in this country. That is the only specific matter before the house. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) says that it is still a matter of talk so far as the government is concerned. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) merely says: Hear enough about it and determine what may be adequate, and when it comes in we will adopt it. The situation in the country today calls for something more than that. I have not any hope of the government bringing in adequate measures. That was pretty clearly indicated yesterday afternoon when the Prime Minister spoke. His whole attitude was that we are not any worse off than they are in any other country. He made a comparison between Canada, the United States and Great Britain. There may be some comparison between Canada and the United States.
Yesterday afternoon the Prime Minister based his whole opposition to price controls on what has taken place in Britain. As I said briefly last evening-and I want to repeat it now-there is no comparison between this country and Great Britain. Canada is an expanding country; it is a country that is
exporting about one-third of its total production. On the other hand, Britain-and I repeat what I said yesterday-is still digging herself out of the rubble of the last war. In 1945 she was faced with the problem of reconverting her whole industrial set-up from war to peace. There were shortages of materials of all kinds. Britain is a country that has no control over internal prices, because the prices in that country are determined by the imports that she receives from other countries. Canada and the United States today are responsible for the upward trend of prices not only in Britain but pretty well throughout the world, because this country is price fixing on a world scale.
When you stop for a moment and consider that the mass production methods employed in the United States place that country in the position where she needs the world for a market-and the world is her market-you will see that world prices today are largely determined in the United States. Therefore I say that because price controls did not work a hundred per cent in Britain it does not follow that they would not work here. The situation in Britain is not analogous to our situation at all.
In my opinion the inflation in this country and in the United States on the large number of imports that Britain has to buy from both Canada and the United States was the main factor in wrecking the controls and subsidy arrangements that they had in that country.
I was disturbed last evening to see the Prime Minister take the very adamant attitude that price controls would not work in this country. The fact of the matter is that we have to try something; otherwise this weapon of inflation, aimed at this continent by the communists, is going to wreck its internal economy. Unless something is done, that will happen. It is not good enough to say that we are not going to do anything about it; but that appears to be the attitude at the present time.
Let me refer to another example that the Prime Minister gave last evening which I do not think was a good one, although he honestly placed it before us. He took the hourly wage rates in 1939 and in 1951, and went on to point out the price of bacon and eggs, bread and milk and so forth, and made the assertion that the hourly wage rates in 1939 and in 1951 were comparable; that you could buy almost the same amount today with the hourly wages that the worker receives as you could in 1939. I wonder why he went back to 1939, because I would remind the Prime Minister and the house that in 1939

The Address-Mr. Gillis there were not many hours worked, there was not very much wages paid for the hours the men did work.
The Prime Minister will recall that at that time we had in this country approximately one million people unemployed, which would cut down considerably the number of hours worked, and wage rates were very low.
If a comparison is to be made, based on the purchasing power of the wage and salaried workers in this country, one does not need to go back beyond 1948. That is when the trouble really got under way. The purchasing power of the Canadian dollar today as opposed to what it was in 1948 is down 33J per cent. That means a reduction of that much in the wage and salaried workers' standard of living. That is what it is. Today it is 33 J per cent below what it was in 1948. That is when your spiral of inflation really got under way. That terrific loss of purchasing power in the Canadian dollar has set off the demands for increases in pensions and in wages which are disturbing industry right across the country.
Increased production is the best weapon against inflation; but with this retarding of production because of wage demands and that kind of thing, we are losing the main weapon that we have to fight inflation. Production is not on the up trend; it is not what it should be in this country today because of the unrest that has set in throughout the whole of industry. Therefore if we are to make our maximum effort in producing for defence purposes, the problem of inflation has to be tackled if we are to be in a position to supply NATO countries with arms and equipment. If we are to give them these arms and equipment at a price that they can pay, then we have to start pulling our prices down; otherwise 40 per cent of the money that we are going to spend on equipment for these countries will consist of inflated prices. If that takes place, then all we will do will be to cripple these countries when they purchase adequate supplies to do the job that that organization aims to do. Therefore the whole defence program is tied in with the question of high prices in Canada today.
That is not inflation any more; it is profiteering. This morning I picked up a letter in the Ottawa Citizen which was written by an interested citizen. If a man thinks enough about this problem to sit down and write a letter to the newspapers it shows that he is concerned about it. I think he is a good citizen when he makes a protest about it. This letter sets out the situation and shows what people who have something to sell will do in a given situation. This is a small matter,

but it reflects the trend in practically everything. The letter is addressed to the editor of the Ottawa Citizen and reads:
On October 10, following the departure of our charming Princess, a friend and I dropped into one of Ottawa's newest restaurants. Upon seating ourselves at a booth, we were presented with a menu and after looking at same noticed the prices thereon seemed to have doubled overnight. Fantastic as it sounds, the price of a cup of coffee or tea or a glass of milk was stated1 on the menu at 25 cents.
It would appear, at this absurd rate of profit, they could make approximately $15 on one pound of coffee, or $1.25 on one quart of milk which cost them 19 cents.
This is merely one example. You could follow that through in practically everything that the average person has to purchase in this country today. That is profiteering. These prices were charged in the city of Ottawa at a time when a large number of people would be out during the royal visit and would automatically go into a restaurant to get something to eat. This fellow thought it was a good idea to shove his prices up. There should be a law against that kind of thing. That is highway robbery, in my opinion; it is simply taking the public by the throat, and extracting from them more than the traffic will bear. Some legislation should be enacted to protect the general public from that kind of thing.
For many years in the house members of this group have stated that in demanding the removal of controls hon. members supporting the government and the official opposition followed an unwise procedure. It was their contention that by the removal of controls we would return to a system of free enterprise and initiative, and where the rules of supply and demand would regulate everything smoothly. We know that controls were taken off. The Progressive Conservative party hounded the Liberal party until it acquiesced. What happened?
It has been our contention over the years, and still is, that we have not had a removal of controls in Canada, but rather a condition where controls have been taken out of responsible hands. We do not have controls laid down by legislation and subject to scrutiny by hon. members who are responsible to their constituents. Controls have been placed in the hands of irresponsible people. These people have combined to manipulate prices and to hold a gun to the head of the small merchant in every town and city across the country. Those people fix the prices at which the small merchant must resell, at the risk of not getting further supplies. We relinquished controls and passed them into the hands of irresponsible persons behind the

scenes. Those persons now operate the controls by holding a gun at the head of everyone who is obliged to deal with manufacturers.	'
This contention is substantiated by what is contained in the MacQuarrie report tabled in the house a few days ago. According to press reports it is set out in the report that price-fixing has been rampant across this country, and that certain manufacturers can fix prices on certain commodities and state what those prices will be regardless of the wishes of anyone.
I think it is time hon. members in the House of Commons asked themselves whether they are big enough to represent the public who sent them here, and whether they are prepared to accept the responsibility of regulating the cost of living to a point within reason. Surely we should give our attention to essential commodities. Failing that, are we going to abrogate the institution of parliament and leave it in the hands of hijackers and gangsters across the country whose only interest is to make money for themselves, regardless of what may happen to the general public?
The skyrocketing of prices, the manipulating of prices and the profits shown by large manufacturers and industrialists across the country have left in the minds of our people the thought that many of the things we are doing by way of defence and the guarding of security are not worth while. There is an apathy creeping into the minds of the people; they have almost thrown up their hands. It is high time the House of Commons got down to business and demonstrated that in the house we are prepared to enact legislation which will protect the people from international gangsterism, monopolistic control of prices, or any other form of iniquity that has been perpetrated to the detriment of the best interests of the people. That in my opinion is the job we will have to do.
Let us consider now the spread between the amount received by the man who actually produces and that received by the one who finally makes a sale. I like to take simple examples, and with this in mind I will refer to the package of cigarettes which today sells at 42 cents, but which two months ago sold at 40 cents. Roughly speaking, 25 cents is government tax. I do not quarrel with this kind of tax. I do not have to smoke cigarettes. If taxes are necessary in order to secure the money for social services and for purposes of defence, then I am prepared to pay a tax on that kind of commodity.
My concern, however, is that the grower, the man who takes a chance on the weather, the man who plants the tobacco and who sees 94699-6
The Address-Mr. Gillis that it is harvested gets only three cents for that package of cigarettes. At the 42-cent price, after deducting the 25 cents tax there is 14 cents left. Where does it go? It is received by the people who merely distribute the product of someone else's toil. The fellow who merely shoves along this package of cigarettes gets 14 cents, and in my opinion he is not entitled to that much. He is living off the sweat of the fellow who produces the tobacco in the tobacco fields.
If the government is going to consider seriously this matter of prices, then I suggest an inquiry into a situation of this kind is absolutely necessary. It is time that the producers of commodities in Canada got an equal share in the products of their toil, or at least a share equal to that received by those who simply pass those products along to the market.
I would bet that the restaurant owner who, overnight, jacked up his prices by 200 or 300 per cent did not increase the wages of those who worked in his restaurant. I am sure those wages remained stationary. I have the feeling that if a committee of the house were appointed now, with power to call before it those who should be called- and there are not many of them-it would have a great influence in straightening out this sort of thing.
A moment ago I referred to the manner in which inflation works right back into the industrial production of the country. I have in mind the city of Windsor where at the moment there are about 3,000 unemployed automobile workers. Why are they unemployed? We must ask ourselves that question. To my mind the greatest difficulty in the Windsor situation is not the restrictive instalment buying regulations imposed by the government, as has been contended right along. If anyone were to follow through the situation in the automotive industry he would reach a point where he would have to consider the steel industry. It is my view that both in Canada and in the United States that industry requires overhauling.
It is my contention that the chief difficulty in the automobile industry is a shortage of steel. We have a steel controller, it is true, but apparently all he does is to decide where steel shall go. He is not exercising any control whatsoever. While it is true that the large portion of the steel used by the automobile industry in the last year may not have come from a black market, it has come from a rather grey one. Much of that steel has not been purchased through legitimate channels.

The Address-Mr. Gillis It is my belief that an inquiry into the steel industry from coast to coast in this country is necessary. The condition of inflation coupled with the shortage of steel, and with steel being manipulated as it is at the present time, is causing unrest at the point where a third of Canada's basic steel is turned out. I am sure the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) knows that for the last three months there has been in the steel plant at Sydney, one of the main steel plants in Canada, an increasing demand for higher wages. Why is that demand being made? They are making it because inflated prices have compelled them to do so. To blame the condition on management or to blame it on a worker is not going to do much good, because the root cause of the difficulty is inflated prices. Until we do something about that root cause we will have the kind of condition I have described. And during this time of steel shortage the industry down there has been practically tied up for the last three months in an effort to adjust wages.
As I said before, until something is done about inflation in this country there will not be much use in adjusting wages because you will only have again the problem which occurred in 1948 as far as the war pensioners are concerned. At that time the government looked over the situation and decided that the pension dollar would not buy what it did in 1939 within 25 per cent, so a 25 per cent increase was granted in the basic pensions. When the veterans affairs committee met last year it was found that the pension dollar had shrunk by one-third and that there was a demand for an increased pension. That demand is caused by inflated prices. That is the root of the pensioners' difficulties. It is a real problem facing this country from coast to coast and I think every hon. member realizes that.
It is time that we got down to business in this house and tackled that problem. I do not believe anyone wants to be political about it. I do not believe the leader of the opposition was political about this matter, otherwise his amendment would have been much stronger. He left it open. If this matter is not worthy of consideration then someone should get up and prove that that is so on the record. Nevertheless this house has to get together on that problem because if something is not done the whole economy of this country will be wrecked.
I should like to say one or two words about the problems facing our veterans. I was disappointed that there was not something

in the throne speech to indicate that something would be done about the recommendations made in the final report of the veterans committee which suggested that consideration should be given to increasing the basic pension for veterans. As there was no mention in the throne speech of this matter I assume that consideration is still being given to it and that nothing is going to be done this session.
I am disappointed that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) has not placed a resolution on the order paper to set up that veterans affairs committee so that we could be doing something about this problem, which is so real to the Legion at this time. During the time I was home I met the members of many Legion branches and the thing uppermost in their minds was to bring back the purchasing power of the pension dollar to what it was when the last 25 per cent increase was granted.
I notice that two government supporters have resolutions on the order paper suggesting that consideration should be given to increasing the basic pensions to veterans. During this debate in the early days of this session I should like them to tell us their opinions on this matter and what the government is prepared to do about it. Something should be done about it. The resolutions will never be reached, but they look good on paper to the man outside the house who does not understand our procedure. Far be it from me to impute motives to hon. members who have resolutions on the order paper, but that is the way I see it.
I should like to provoke the thoughts of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Clax-ton) for a moment or two. He has indicated that we are going to give all possible support to the troops in Korea. I am glad to hear him say that, because the newspaper reports would indicate that they need it. But some attention should also be paid to those boys who have been lucky enough to receive wounds that were sufficient to send them back to Canada. A couple of boys who had just landed back from Korea came to see me last month. What I intend to say now refers only to military district No. 6 in Nova Scotia because I do not know what is happening in other parts of the country.
These boys told me that as far as they could see there was no administrative machinery in that military district to advise them as to what they were entitled to and what they might be able to do after their discharge. They told me that there had been no suggestion of What their pension rights might be. They had received no clothing

allowance; all they had was a standing-up uniform. They wanted to know if they were entitled to the rehabilitation benefits granted to the boys who returned from the last war. I told them they were and they replied that no one had told them anything about it.
The administration of that district is carried on by the reserve army and these boys had been given no idea of what they were entitled to. They said they had not been granted a month's leave given to the soldiers returning from the last war, and also had not been given a transportation warrant. One of these boys had only $9. He had to pay his transportation home after fourteen or fifteen months' service. He had to beat his way home because that amount of money would not permit him to travel on a ticket. All he had was the standing-up uniform he had worn in Korea. There was also the command ringing in his ears from the reserve army officers that he might have to pay for the rifle he had lost in Korea unless he could present sworn evidence as to how he had lost it. He would have to send to Korea to get that evidence.
This does not offer a very bright picture or much encouragement to other boys to go into the service. The Minister of National Defence stated quite clearly what we are getting into when he said that these defence preparations might last for ten years or for a generation and that there would be no relief in sight as far as taxes are concerned. I believe that that is true. I believe that this will be going on for a long time. It is most important that the morale of the young men of this country be such that they will be ready to volunteer their services. In my opinion one of the best ways to build up that morale is to show the boys at home that we are absolutely interested in those young men who have offered their lives in defence of their country, that we are willing to do everything possible to compensate them for the injuries they may receive overseas.
The Minister of National Defence should take a look at this military district in Halifax. I have written him about this matter and I must say that I have not got much satisfaction. If conditions are as I have described, if they are as described by these boys who recently returned from Korea, then a general overhauling is in order.
I realize that my time is up, but I should like to suggest to the hon. members of this house and to the government that they give serious consideration to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). The only thing before the house now and the most important matter
The Address-Mr. Winters in the country is a recommendation that we consider price controls and subsidies as a medium of bringing down the cost of living.


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity to congratulate, first of all, the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Mr. Cauchon) and to compliment him upon the outstanding way he carried on in both languages. I wish to associate myself with the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), who said that the outstanding role played by the hon. member in municipal affairs was being duplicated in the broader field here. I am sure he has made a considerable contribution to the national unity about which he expressed so much concern during his speech. I should like to say also how delighted I was with the speech of the seconder (Mr. Simmons) whose great constituency I have had the privilege of visiting. I have had the opportunity to experience with him some of the enthusiasm and the pioneering spirit that goes with that part of the country. The resources are being developed there to a very great extent, and I certainly share his optimism about the role Canada's great north has to play in the future of this country.
I wish to refer briefly to the speech of the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) and to say that I associate myself fully with him in the remarks he made about the proposed causeway across the strait of Canso. That is something that we in Nova Scotia have been anxious for many years to see accomplished. I think the citizens of Nova Scotia appreciated the obstacles there were, and they are greatly relieved now that these obstacles can be overcome and that assurance has been given that the causeway will be built. I simply want to say again that I share his gratification at the progress that has been made to date. I know that the premier of Nova Scotia is equally gratified. We all owe a great debt of gratitude to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) who has worked so untiringly on behalf of this project.
Since housing is an important part of our economy, since it is an important problem today, and since a number of changes have been made with respect to housing since the last session, I thought I should take an early opportunity of placing the facts of the situation before parliament to give hon. members an opportunity of appraising the situation for themselves. Before dealing with present housing conditions, it might be well to review activities in Canada since
76

The Address-Mr. Winters 1945 in order to gain a proper perspective of the government's concern about and action with respect to the problem.
It will be recalled that when our armed services were being repatriated to Canada the government recognized that housing needs would become acute and policies were adopted to help meet the problem. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation was formed to administer the National Housing Act and other related activities. Wartime Housing Limited, absorbed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in 1947, embarked upon the construction of rental units for veterans. Before this program came to an end in 1949 about 31,000 units were built in communities across the country to meet the pressing needs of married veterans. This is roughly equivalent to the number of residential units in the city of Edmonton.
While this program was under way the government, through C.M.H.C., took extraordinary steps in co-operation with the municipalities to provide emergency shelter for veterans and their families. In co-operation with the universities temporary units were Installed upon the campus of virtually every university in Canada to look after the housing needs of married veteran students. This emergency shelter program for veterans and veteran students for the most part took the form of conversion of existing buildings with the co-operation of the municipalities and the universities but financed for the most part by the federal government. More than 11,000 families were thus looked after until permanent accommodation could be found for them. During recent years these emergency shelter units have been closed, and the present number of veterans' families using this accommodation is but a fraction of what it was three years ago.
Completions of all types of houses for the four calendar years, 1947 to 1950, were 344,000 units, with a record high of approximately 91,000 units in 1950. Completions for the year 1951 should be in excess of 85,000 units. Events since January, 1950, have not been conducive to the continuation of an increasing number of housing completions, but even so hon. members will notice that residential construction has been high by any previous accomplishment.
In 1949 amendments to the National Housing Act were approved by this house. Among other things they enabled the federal government to join with provincial governments to provide housing of a variety of types including public housing. The legislation provides that, for housing projects considered mutually desirable by the provincial and federal
/Mr. Winters.]

The Address-Mr. Winters a number of localities, we encouraged an expansion of operations under section 35, the dominion-provincial section of the N.H.A., and Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia showed increasing interest. You will recall that about this time Ontario announced an initial program of 5,000 units, to be expanded at a later date, and other provinces came forward with proposals indicating their intention to build low-rental projects. This operation would have imposed a charge against available materials, and this had to be taken into consideration because the small amounts of materials showing up as surpluses in some areas would not have been sufficient to cope with the number of units being discussed under this section.
By late September, long down payments, increased prices, together with a number of other factors, had caused a substantial reduction in starts. Among the factors that have a bearing on house-building are availability and cost of serviced land; availability of labour and materials and others. Only Newfoundland and New Brunswick had housing projects under way under section 35 and the defence construction program was not absorbing all the materials anticipated, chiefly because of shortages of a few vital materials. I should at this time interject a warning that the heavy defence construction program will in due course hit its peak and will exert a tremendously increased demand for materials. At any rate, it now seemed clear for the first time that there were building capacity and some materials that might be used for housing, especially for defence workers. Therefore, in accordance with the government's undertaking to parliament to keep the problem under constant review, with a view to giving Canadians the opportunity to build houses up to the limit of building capacity and materials available for the purpose, and to give special emphasis to houses for defence workers, I was able, on October 5, 1951, to announce improved loans which should encourage a higher level of starts.
Under this new arrangement, houses for certified defence workers in plants designated by the Minister of Defence Production will be financed so that the certified worker may build or purchase a house from a builder on the basis of a down payment of 10 per cent under the terms of the N.H.A., providing for amortization not in excess of 25 years. A certified defence worker means a person certified by his employer to be engaged in the production of defence supplies in a plant designated in whole or in part by the Department of Defence Production as a defence plant. Defence workers will have priority
;Mr. Winters.]

for such houses, but in the event that the builder does not find a defence purchaser, then the house may be sold to other than a defence worker, and the mortgage loan will be 80 per cent of the agreed sales price. In the event of a builder being unable to sell a house to a defence worker in the first two months, and to a person other than a defence worker in the following three months, central mortgage will be prepared to purchase the house from the builder at 95 per cent of the agreed maximum sales price. Those builders who wish to avail themselves of this guaranteed purchase price by Central Mortgage will pay a premium of one-third of one per cent on such purchase price. In addition, Central Mortgage will make loans under the rental insurance plan for housing to be rented to defence workers. Maximum rentals will be established and shall have effect for five years, during which period all leases and renewals shall be limited to certified defence workers. These rental units may be rented to others only if defence worker tenants are not available. Loans for such rental insurance projects will be on an 85 per cent basis.
To the extent that mortgage financing is not available from lending institutions for defence workers, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will be prepared to make direct loans. The Minister of Defence Production will from time to time designate defence plants to which these special housing arrangements are applicable. Plants of the type likely to be designated by the Minister of Defence Production are A. V. Roe, Malton; Dowty, Ajax; Light Alloys and Cockshutt Plow, Renfrew; Canadair, Cartierville; and Sorel Industries, Sorel.
To facilitate more housing units for those other than defence workers, N.H.A. loans will be 80 per cent of an agreed maximum sales price, and the rental insurance plan will be reinstated on an 80 per cent basis. An example of typical financing for a five-room
bungalow is:
Agreed sales price	 $9,000.00
Buy back at end of five months ..	$8,550.00
Premium for buy-back	 $	28.50
Loan on sale to defence worker ..	$8,100.00
Loan in event of sale to a nondefence worker	 $7,200.00
Present basic loan on Jan. 1/50
lending value	 $6,000.00
The agreed sale price provision is added in an attempt to control undue price increases as a measure of protection to the prospective home owner.
The increased rates of loan will not be available with respect to those houses already sold. For houses in the course of construction or completed but not yet sold, the additional

loan will be made available upon request by the lending institution concerned, and subject to agreement with respect to the sale price.
As I indicated before, section 35 was added to the National Housing Act in 1949 to give to all three levels of government the opportunity to do something about building houses where they are most urgently needed. This section was the result of consultations with all provincial governments and it contemplates houses for sale or for rent on an economic or subsidized basis. There are many problems, especially at the municipal level, and despite the efforts of the federal and some provincial governments, the results -except in the cases of the governments of Newfoundland and of New Brunswick-have, in the over-all, not been as great as might have been hoped. Nevertheless, there are two public housing projects now actually under way: 140 units in St. John's, Newfoundland, and 88 units in Saint John, New Brunswick. About twenty additional projects are still in the negotiation stage and eight land assembly projects have been undertaken to provide serviced lots in areas where housing is limited for this reason. I am glad to be able to report that activity with the provinces is increasing and although conditions today are not conducive to large volumes of subsidized public housing, I think a long-term pattern has been set, accompanied by an increasing number of examples of what can be done.
Pending development of circumstances which would enable the government to embark upon a general policy that would permit defence workers to obtain homes, special needs have been met in certain instances where Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has acted at the request of the Department of Defence Production to start units at Haley's, Sorel, and Renfrew. Moreover, we are pressing ahead with married quarters for armed services personnel, and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation expects this year to start approximately 4,000 units for the Department of National Defence.
Last year there was a record of over 91,000 housing units completed in Canada. Completions for 1951 will not fall very far short of that figure. Earlier I stated that, in so far as it was within the capacity of the government to influence the construction of houses, we would see to it (a) that people who had started houses would have an opportunity to complete them; (b) that special emphasis would be given to the building of houses where they are most urgently required for the development of the defence program; (c) that Canadians would have an opportunity to build houses up to the limit of building capacity and materials available for the
The Address-Mr. Winters purpose; and (d) that the government would take what reasonable steps it could to protect home owners against undue increases in the cost of houses.
It has taken a little time to bring the problem to this degree of manageable proportions. Throughout its course during this very difficult period, the government, by adjusting its policies to meet conditions, has lived up to its obligations, with the result that it has guarded against undue increases in the cost of houses, it has enabled people to complete houses they had started, and it has enabled Canadians to build houses up to the limit of building capacity and materials available for the purpose. And now it has taken additional steps to carry out its intention, announced earlier, to emphasize housing in defence production areas and to encourage housing generally.
The housing problem is a great one and it is an important one. Canada's population is growing. More houses are needed. No one today claims that as many houses are being built in Canada as are required, but I do wish to join with those who have seen housebuilding activities in cities from one coast to the other in saying that a great effort is being made.
The government is well aware of the continuing need and, as already stated, will continue to attach a high order of importance to housing and emphasize it to a degree second only to the direct defence program itself.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the minister permit a question?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Robert Henry Winters: I have just another few moments.
Flexibility has been the keynote to the government's approach to this important problem, and I reiterate what I have said on previous occasions-the problem is being kept under continuous review and every effort will continue to be made to see to it that Canadians are given an opportunity to build houses up to the limit of building capacity and materials available for the purpose.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the minister permit a question now?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What is to be the government's policy with reference to granting priorities for building materials for house building?


Robert Henry Winters: With respect to houses for certified defence workers the government will undertake to see to it that adequate supplies
80	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Brooks of materials are made available. At the present time, no system of allocations or priorities has been planned for other than defence workers' houses.


Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we were all pleased indeed to hear the statement of the minister with regard to housing. It is one of the great problems in Canada today and has been for a number of years. I understood him to say that the problem was not so great-or that is what I took from his remarks'

in the province of New Brunswick and in the province of Newfoundland. That is quite understandable, I think, in our part of the country, considering the fact that a great number of our people are leaving New Brunswick and I know of a great many houses that are being vacated.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I think I should correct the hon. member. I did not say that the problem was not great. I said that those two provinces, Newfoundland and New Brunswick, have gone further than the other provincial governments in doing something about housing under section 35 of the National Housing Act.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The implication, of course, is that the problem is easier for them, I think.


Robert Henry Winters: No, not at all. That is not a fair deduction.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: As a matter of fact, it is easier, Mr. Speaker. I know that for a fact, because we have a great many vacant houses not only in my own town but throughout the whole province of New Brunswick, owing to the fact that people are leaving.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would compliment the mover and the seconder of the address in reply on their speeches. I did not have the good fortune to hear either of them, but I have read their remarks. While congratulating movers and seconders has become more or less a matter of form in this house, nevertheless the speech of the mover and of the seconder is usually his maiden speech. Knowing how difficult it is for one to speak, especially for the first time, in the House of Commons, I am sure these gentlemen deserve credit on that point alone if not on others.
The hon. member for Yukon-Mackenzie River (Mr. Simmons) spoke with great pride about his constituency in the northern part of Canada. We all realize, of course, that the northern section of this dominion is exceedingly important, not only to him but to every member in this house.
I was also pleased with the reception which Their Royal Highnesses have received in the

various cities and towns in Canada they have visited so far. As yet they have not visited the maritime provinces, but I can assure them and this house that they will receive there as affectionate a welcome as they have received or will receive in any other part of the country.
The speech from the throne mentions old age pensions. This matter of course has had the approval of all members of the House of Commons. In my part of the country we are greatly concerned as to just how we are going to raise the money for the payment of old age pensions for pensioners between the ages of 65 and 69. We realize that this is not such a great problem in some of the other provinces, particularly Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia; but it is a great problem for the poorer provinces, and it is going to mean a considerable hardship so far as raising the money is concerned.
I was also interested in the announcement in the speech from the throne that our Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) had recently consulted with the President of the United States on the vital importance to the security and economies of both countries of proceeding as rapidly as possible with both .the seaway and power phase of the St. Lawrence project. I am sure that this project will be of great benefit to the central parts of Canada, and no doubt it will be of much benefit to the western farmers who hope to ship their wheat at a cheaper rate through the development of the St. Lawrence waterway. Still it is something which I do not believe will accrue to the general benefit of all the people of this country.
It will be of great benefit to many parts of the United States. The state of New York will benefit greatly, as will also many of the other states; but there are states, as there are provinces in Canada, which will not benefit. Fortunately those states in the United States not benefiting have great influence and great power, and by their voices and votes were able to exercise influence in Washington sufficient to hold up the approval by congress of the St. Lawrence waterway. The provinces in Canada which will not be benefited have not the influence that these states in the United States have in that connection. I do feel that it is hard to believe that the Canadian government should embark on such an immense scheme as this without more adequate investigation. So far as the benefits and non-benefits of this project are concerned, I do not think that the government has considered every section of the dominion. I do not think that they have considered what effect it will have on the economic conditions of all sections of this

country. I suggest that a thorough investigation should be made, because while it may bring great benefit to the people of the central provinces it may mean just the opposite to the people of the maritime provinces and to some other parts of Canada. Before the government enters into this development of the St. Lawrence waterway it should make a thorough investigation into just what the result will be on the economy and the living conditions of the people in all parts of the country.
There are certain questions which I think the people of the outlying provinces have a right to ask. I took these questions from the Halifax Chronicle of a few weeks ago. They read as follows:
1.	Why should the money of the whole dominion be used or its credit pledged to provide vast amounts of additional power for the province of Ontario and the state of New York?
That is one question which in fairness I think we have a right to ask. I continue:
2.	What is going to happen to the industry of the country at large if this additional and tremendous centralizing force is brought into play?
We know what is happening now; we know what has happened in the past. In the central provinces hydroelectric power is much cheaper than it is in some of the outlying provinces, with the result that manufacturing has been centralized in these central provinces. Here the government is again promoting an enterprise which will mean still cheaper power for Ontario and Quebec and which I believe will work still greater disadvantages to some other provinces. I think the third question is a fair one in these times when we are told, as the minister who just took his seat told us, of the great scarcity of materials for building and so on.
3.	Where are the materials to come from to carry out the project, the steel and cement, already in such short supply that necessary and modest projects must be abandoned for lack of them?
That is a question in which all the people from one end of Canada to the other are interested. Then there is a fourth question which I have added myself.
4.	Will there be assistance given in developing water power in the maritime provinces?
I might mention such waterways or water developments as the Quoddy and others. I think that, in all fairness and justice to the people of the maritime provinces, if hundreds of millions of dollars are to be spent for the development of the St. Lawrence waterway, if it is to be developed, as it will be, to our disadvantage, we as a part of Canada should be given some consideration in the development of the waterways in our own provinces. The Passamaquoddy development has been approved by President Truman, as has the St. Lawrence waterway. Sometimes we feel it
The Address-Mr. Brooks is because we are small that our voice does not amount to much in the House of Commons or in the country, and therefore we are neglected; but I do hope that the government, in considering these matters, will also consider some compensation for the money which we shall have to pay to assist in this development.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that the attitude of the maritime provinces in this matter, as it has been in all matters in the past, is not one of hostility. We have always played our part in the development of this country, as we always shall. We have helped to build great railways from the Atlantic to the Pacific; we have helped to build the canals, and we have played our part in every way in helping to build up Canada, and we are still willing to do so; but we do feel that other parts of Canada should help in some way to build up the maritime provinces, or any other section of Canada which requires assistance. After all, we are one country and one people. I do not believe that any country can prosper unless every section of it is prosperous. My deskmate refers to the matter of defence. He and I and others have mentioned that many times. We have always borne our share of the defence of the country, and we always shall, and we have been very proud of it.
The speech from the throne does mention the building of the causeway and the bridge between Cape Breton island and the mainland of Nova Scotia. The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) also referred to it. I think he said it was 50 years since it was first mentioned. I know I have heard of it practically all my life. As a New Bruns-wicker I am pleased that Nova Scotia is getting this public work. It will not be of much benefit to us in New Brunswick. As a matter of fact I do not think it will be of any great benefit to us. It will benefit Nova Scotia, and because of that we are very pleased indeed.
There is one matter which is not mentioned in the speech from the throne, and I am very much surprised that it was not included. It was the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) who brought the matter before the house yesterday in a question he asked the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe). This was his question:
Will the government make a statement at an early date in connection with the increase oi basic pensions for veterans?
To that question the minister replied:
I have received inquiries touching upon this matter from various members of the house.

The Address-Mr. Brooks
I am satisfied that every member has been and is interested in the matter. The minister continued:
In answer to the hon. member for Fraser Valley, I wish to say that the government has been considering all veterans legislation and the advisability of appointing a committee, and an announcement will be made at an early date concerning the same.
As I said a moment ago, I am surprised that this matter was not included in the speech from the throne. It surprises me that the minister waited until the house was in session, and that the matter had to be brought to his attention before he made an announcement. Veterans all across Canada have been pressing for action for some time. All hon. members know that it came before the house at the last session.
I have always contended that matters connected with veterans affairs, and the estimates of that department, are among the most important to be considered at each session of parliament. To my mind they are so important, and have been of such importance for the past number of years, that I and many other members have requested time and again that a permanent committee be set up, so that each year we might consider questions connected with veterans affairs. I regret that the government has not seen fit to accede to this request.
We were pleased to learn at the last session of parliament that a special committee would be set up to discuss veterans problems, but we were greatly disappointed that two of the most important matters confronting veterans, matters which were giving them great concern, namely the increase in the basic rate of pension, and the war veterans allowance, were not to be considered by the committee on veterans affairs. It was obvious to us when the motion was placed before the house, and when the terms of reference to the committee were made known, that these two important matters would not be considered. At that time I moved in the house an amendment which would have included war veterans allowances. Hon. members will recall what happened:	My
amendment was voted down.
On more than one occasion during the sittings of the committee members of opposition parties requested that the terms of reference be referred back to the house, so that these matters might be given consideration. Our motions in committee were voted down. This was disappointing to us, but even more disappointing to the thousands of veterans across Canada. When they were told that there would be a veterans affairs committee in 1951 they had high hopes. There had been no such committee since 1948. In the meantime many problems had arisen affecting

veterans, and they felt that, now that a committee on veterans affairs was being set up, those two important matters, matters which come to one's mind at once, namely the increase in the basic rate of pension, and the war veterans allowance, would be considered.
The Canadian Legion and other veterans organizations had previously submitted to the government briefs concerning these and other important problems. I think they emphasized that the two problems to which I have referred particularly were the most important, and that they should be considered. Certainly they expected they would be considered by our committee, and we expected that as a committee we would be given every opportunity to consider these veterans' recommendations.
The pressing problem confronting veterans, as it confronts most people in Canada, is the high cost of living. In the simplest terms, living costs have rendered utterly inadequate the existing financial provision for disabled veterans and their dependents in Canada. If we take the period 1935-39 as the norm, we see that in that time a married veteran received $100 per month for the maintenance of himself and his wife, and that at that time the cost of living index stood at 100. Today the pensioner receives $125 a month, but the cost of living index is around 190. This tremendous increase in the cost of living, without any increase in pensions or war veterans allowances, has caused an appalling drop in the living standards of this most deserving group of our Canadian citizens. Indeed the living standards of a good many people have gone up, while those of the pensioners have gone down.
It was also suggested by the veterans organizations which appeared before our committee that the wage index should be used as a barometer of living standards, and that it should be a factor which would receive consideration in connection with an analysis of pension legislation. It will be recalled that when the Pension Act was first put into force the two norms upon which pensions were based were, first, the cost of living and, secondly, the wages of ordinary labour. Members of the Legion and of other organizations appearing before us pointed out-indeed it was unnecessary ,to do so, because we knew it-that the cost of living index had risen from 100 to, at that time, 180, and, now, 190, and that the wage index upon which the original pension was based had gone up to something like 250 to 260.
When the pensioners asked for this increase in the basic rate of pensions and of war veterans allowance it was obvious to all of

them that they were making a fair and reasonable request-and a request of which I suggest the government should have taken cognizance and upon which it should' have acted at the last session of parliament. The government may act upon it now; I hope it will, and I feel it should. A committee should be set up at this session and these questions should be considered. I feel that every member with a sense of justice will agree with me in this.
However, we have already lost five or six months. If it is due the pensioners today, as I say it is, then it was due them six months ago, and the committee set up at that time should have dealt with the matter. However, it did not, so that I hope we may deal with it now. What was the answer by the government for the solution of these problems I have just mentioned? It will be recalled that a supplementary grant was made to unemployable pensioners. This meant the introduction of a new principle into pension legislation, that of need instead of right. Instead of an amendment to the Pension Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act we were given item No. 650 in the supplementary estimates to consider which provided $2 million or more as assistance to unemployable veterans who were in receipt of pensions. It was to be given to single pensioners whose disability was 35 per cent or more, and to married pensioners with a disability of 45 per cent or more. All below that received nothing. We were told by the officials of the department that some 6,000 veterans would be benefited, 6,000 out of 162,000. The record shows that the opposition members voted against that while it was supported by government members with the exception, I think, of one.


Howard Charles Green: Nobody.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I am informed that no one on the government side voted with us and I stand corrected. No one objects to this help being given to veterans who were unemployable, but what we did object to was the principle being established, that of need instead of right. This was an entirely new principle in veterans legislation and we felt it was humiliating to all the war pensioners of this country.
We pointed out that with an increase in the basic rate of pension and an amendment to the War Veterans Allowance Act the unemployable veterans would have been looked after and the unemployment supplement would have been unnecessary. Some pressure was brought to bear on members by its being said, "If you vote against this you are voting against assistance for men who need it most." As I say, we pointed
The Address-Mr. Brooks out in the committee, as 1 point out here now, that if the basic rate of pension were increased and the War Veterans Allowance Act amended these unemployable pensioners would have been looked after.
I do not think it would be out of place for me to pay a well deserved tribute to the two great veterans organizations of this country. I have been a member of the veterans affairs committee for a great many years and I have seen these men as they came before the committee time and time again. I was able to compare them with the representatives of the veterans organizations which appeared before the United States congress. Pressure groups came before congress and demanded the last ounce from the legislators. Our veterans have never done that. They have always been fair and statesmanlike in making their representations. Naturally they have always given first consideration to their comrades, and that is what we would expect them to do, but they have never forgotten to be fair and reasonable with the Canadian public and the Canadian taxpayer.
Last year was no exception. These leaders of the Canadian veterans came before the committee and pointed out, as I stated a few moments ago, that the terms of reference were too narrow. They asked that the committee should first request the house to broaden these terms. In spite of the fact that this item 650 in the supplementary estimates would benefit some 6,000 of their comrades, these men decided that they would have nothing of it. They did not consider that that was a proper way to help these men. They were absolutely certain that it was not fair to the great majority of Canadian veterans and pensioners.
There were other matters dealt with by the committee and in all fairness I must say that they were dealt with in a way that was of benefit to the veterans. It was agreed that there should be an increase in allowances to widows and children and this was covered by an amendment to the Pension Act. There was an amendment with respect to the benefits paid to members of the Canadian forces in Korea which received unanimous support. Amendments to the Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act were agreed to, as were also the suggested amendments to the Veterans Insurance Act and the Returned Soldiers Insurance Act. All these matters were considered as being necessary for the benefit of the veterans and were approved unanimously by the committee as being good legislation.
I want to repeat that apart from those positive benefits which were received by the veterans, the work of the veterans affairs


Mr. Bona Arsenault (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Cauchon) and the hon. member for Yukon-Mackenzie River (Mr. Simmons), deserve very sincere congratulations for their excellent contribution to this debate. May I also compliment the Speaker of this house on his recent success in mastering the French language. Not only do we French-speaking Canadians find a new pleasure in conversing with His Honour in French since his attendance at Laval university summer school; we now stretch our enjoyment to the extent of attempting to find some traces of French accent whenever His Honour addresses the house in the English language.
I wish at this time to draw the attention of the house to a problem which is not only of vital interest to the population of the county of Bonaventure, which I represent in this chamber, but also to the whole of the Gaspe peninsula and the maritime provinces. I refer to the conservation of our Gaspe salmon fishery, the protection of the Atlantic salmon fishery of eastern Canada. On the shores of Bonaventure county and the whole of the south shore of the Gaspe peninsula many small farms provide but a bare living for their owners' families. Accordingly many farmers are obliged to look elsewhere for the money to clothe and educate their children. Many harvest pulpwood from their wood lots. Others find various jobs in the bush, but those living along the rugged sea-coast or tucked away in tiny fishing villages take a hand in the fisheries.
Among these the Gaspe salmon fishery is of special interest because it is about equally divided between a purely commercial fishery and a sports industry. Atlantic salmon, as we all know, provide the world with one of its choicest delicacies, while at the same time it is undoubtedly one of the world's most celebrated fresh water sporting fish. For centuries, Mr. Speaker, famous men have angled for this fish all the way from the coast of Spain right around the north Atlantic to the northeast coast of Canada and the United States. For centuries also farmers of Bonaventure county, the Gaspe peninsula and the-

gulf of St Lawrence have carried on the business of catering to angling enthusiasts while hundreds of professional fishermen in the same areas battle for their livelihood year after year by setting their own shore nets in order to forward to the markets their share of this delicious Atlantic salmon, better known the world over as Gaspe salmon.
In the most pleasant job of angling, as much a sport as a business, the cash crop is not the fish but the fisherman. The angler works hard and pays cheerfully for that privilege with his vacation dollars, for always in his heart is a love of the out of doors and the hope of catching the big one. In the fine art of angling all men, great or small, stand on equal terms with the wary salmon, and on the light tackle used a strong fish is given an even break, a sporting chance for liberty. Commercially, however, salmon are trapped in coastal waters in strong nets. Shore nets came to the Baie de Chaleur and the gulf of St. Lawrence with the earliest settlers, but offshore drift netting dates only from about 1920, after modern food packaging and mechanical refrigeration had given the demand for fresh salmon an international rather than a local character. At first the total commercial catch due to drift netting increased rapidly until around 1930, when it began to fall off again. It fell off to the extent that during the past ten years the combined take of shore nets and drifters has averaged about the same as that of shore nets alone before 1920.
I wish to point out to the house that this is a most serious problem which must be dealt with without the least delay, for it could mean the extinction of our Atlantic salmon fishery. Depletion of the salmon stock has brought a crisis to the sports industry. For years sportsmen have spared no expense to preserve their hobby. Through the fish and game protective association they have paid high rentals for angling privileges for a few weeks on the waters they protect. Furthermore, they assume full responsibility for additional heavy outlays to protect the homing salmon. This not only relieves taxpayers of the cost of stream protection but in addition creates many jobs. The salmon sports industry thus produces more total income than does the entire commercial fishery. Meanwhile the protection it affords benefits the commercial fishery, for a salmon river is the nursery of natural undersea food forms. Angling, therefore, is not a heavy drain upon the salmon stock for the Atlantic salmon fisheries but is, on the contrary, its best friend and protector. Yet today, Mr. Speaker, excessive drift netting is undoing
The Address-Mr. Arsenault the years of work of the sports industry. Recently, for example, drift netters have been making unusual hauls of the large salmon known to frequent only certain famous club waters, the best protected rivers along the Baie de Chaleur. At the same time anglers on these rivers and shore netters along the coast have suffered the most disappointing season in the memory of man.
The possible effect of this can be judged from recent figures. In 1950 the commercial fishery, mostly drift netters, killed seven times as many salmon as were caught by the sportsmen. The figures in pounds are as follows: commercial fisheries, 3,861,000; sport fisheries, 559,000. The sports industry produced more total income than did the commercial fishery. The figures in dollars are as follows:	commercial fisheries, $1,617,000;
sports industry, $1,913,000. In fact, the average commercial return per pound of salmon was but 43 cents, while that of the sports industry was $3.43, a ratio of eight to one.
This waste of a valuable natural resource is the result of the salmon's migratory habits. As most of us are aware, early in May of each year the salmon appear off Newfoundland. Here they promptly encounter the drift netters based at nearby Port aux Basques. The salmon which escape these drift netters seek out one of the four established routes followed by them in travelling to their home rivers. About two-thirds of the run heads west toward the mouth of the Miramichi river in New Brunswick. Here they mill around near the surface awaiting favourable water conditions before heading north along the coast to the Baie de Chaleur, and thence to the rivers of the south coast of the Gaspe peninsula.
At the mouth of the Miramichi approximately one hundred and fifty drift netters' boats are based during the fishing season. They fish at night with gill nets, each of which is three quarters of a mile long and twelve feet deep. Since this tackle is costly, the loss of a net in bad weather is serious. Because of the falling off of the salmon run in recent years, this fishery has produced little real profit. However, the failure of the salmon run is less critical here than in the sports fishery or in the shore netting industry, because of other fish such as cod, mackerel, haddock, lobster and so on which the drift netters find in abundance. Even the complete suspension of salmon drift netting could hardly create an immediate crisis. In fact in the long run it would pay dividends in increased catches. Those salmon which escape the Miramichi drift net fishery work their way along the coast to their home rivers. Here they encounter other obstructions such

The Address-Mr. Arsenault as industrial pollution, logging dams, log jams and poachers. It is almost a miracle that, in the face of so many obstacles, some salmon reach the autumn spawning beds. Yet to maintain the stock in top condition every river must regularly receive all the spawners it can properly accommodate.
This fact can be utilized to restore the Atlantic salmon fishery to maximum production. What wise leadership can do to restore a completely ruined river is shown by the story of the Matane river in the province of Quebec. Here two paper companies went so far as to revise their logging methods, and to instal a new type of fishway around their dams to help the fish upstream. Meanwhile, young salmon were planted by the attendants of a provincial hatchery. In time mature salmon began returning to the river, until today it is open to the public for angling under local daily leases. This recovery was facilitated by the fact that Matane river salmon do not encounter the critical Miramichi drift net fishery. Upon arrival in the gulf of St. Lawrence, they proceed direct to the north Gaspe shore by a separate route. Yet however successful the Matane program has been, the problem of the Atlantic salmon fishery cannot be solved through local effort alone. The provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland all have a vital interest and the federal government should be deeply concerned.
In 1937 and 1938 the problem of reduced catches of salmon on the Skeena river in British Columbia was investigated by the fisheries research board of Canada. The biologists immediately found themselves confronted with many problems. Instructions were issued to find the answers if possible by the fall of 1948. By 1949, more then ten years afterwards, the first phase of the investigation was completed, and some definite conclusions were reached. One of the main conclusions is to be found in an article appearing in the Canadian Geographical Journal of August, 1949, written by A. L. Pritchard, now the director of conservation and development services of the federal Department of Fisheries. It reads:
The decline in the case of the sockeye, in the opinion of the investigators, was mainly attributable to the commercial fisheries. The fishery was also considered to have been operative in reducing the spring and chum from their original abundance.
In the same article at page 66, I find that the most important recommendation suggested by the investigators was as follows:
The provision of more spawners through the reduction of the commercial catches appeared to be one of the most important and quickly effective devices in any attempt to restore the run.

This might include such things as shortening the fishing season, lengthening the weekly closed periods, and restricting the areas in which nets may be set.
To be fair, Mr. Speaker, I must state that the Miramichi and Port aux Basques drift netters are probably not the only ones to blame for the decrease in the catches of the Atlantic salmon in the rivers of southern Gaspe and Bonaventure counties, but they do share a heavy responsibility. Because of this fact the federal Department of Fisheries has for a number of years restricted the licenses for drift-net fishermen in the general Miramichi area, and has also carried out a policy of not expanding the number of licences for shore nets.
The federal Department of Fisheries recognizes that it is a very critical and difficult situation and one in which not only the federal department is involved but also the five eastern provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. Owing to the seriousness of this situation a co-ordinating committee on Atlantic salmon was formed in 1949. composed of representatives from the federal Department of Fisheries and from the five eastern provinces above mentioned.
The first official meeting was held in Ottawa on November 3, 1949, when the name "co-ordinating committee on Atlantic salmon" was adopted. The terms of reference were finalized, whereby all proposed policies on research, regulation, statistics and development shall be submitted to the committee for review, and the provinces are encouraged to co-operate with the federal government in completing existing gaps in the knowledge of Atlantic salmon. Four subcommittees were formed to deal with the problems arising under each of the principal topics mentioned above. During 1950 further meetings were held on February 2 in Fredericton, New Brunswick: on June 21 in Lunenburg. Nova Scotia; and on October 31 in Quebec city.
While this committee is undoubtedly performing a very useful task and is doing excellent research work, what is urgently needed in order to restore our Atlantic salmon fishery is immediate action. It is no time to analyse the causes of the disaster when a building is on fire. What is needed is drastic action while the co-ordinating committee is performing its duties. And to prompt immediate action to conserve the Atlantic and the Gaspe salmon fisheries before it is too late, two decisive measures are necessary:
(1) The suspension of the Port aux Basques and Miramichi drift-net fisheries under federal control, until the breeding stock is restored.

(2) The setting up of a commission with wide executive powers, representative of the provinces concerned and of the federal government, to take immediate co-ordinated action in order to restore the Atlantic salmon fishery.
Those two measures cannot be expected from the co-ordinating committee on Atlantic salmon as it is now constituted. There should be a full-fledged commission instructed to recommend joint emergency action to be taken, pending the publication of the report of the co-ordinating committee which can only be made available many years from now, at a time when the Gaspe salmon might be a thing of the past. In the case of the Skeena river investigation, mentioned earlier in my address, it took from 1937 until 1949 for the investigators to reach some conclusions and make recommendations. In the critical situation of the Atlantic salmon fishery, as it stands today, we cannot afford to wait that long for conclusions, recommendations and action.
In certain instances where it may be found that anglers over-fish the rivers they have under lease, restrictions should also be imposed upon them by provincial authorities. But generally speaking and under normal conditions, angling and shore netting alone can never destroy our Atlantic salmon crop, while hit and run drift netters can and will destroy it unless something is done about it immediately.


Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I returned to Ottawa with a full and complete knowledge of what my constituents wanted and expected; and I am sure many other hon. members did likewise. In my own constituency of Winnipeg North there is still a serious and sincere desire to have in Canada a federal bill of rights which will protect the liberty of the individual citizen and will protect the minorities of this country from the use of arbitrary and oppressive power. There is amongst the people whom I represent a desire for national health insurance; for as we protect the individual in his civil liberties, we must also protect his physical liberties. In a democracy it must be understood that the individual has as much right to good health as he has to a good education.
The people of my constituency are worried about the housing situation in this country; and they received little, if indeed any, reassurance from the statement made this afternoon by the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters). Cabinet ministers now and again have a capacity to delude themselves which is unparalleled. When the Minister of Resources and Development told us that the government had lived up to its obligations with regard to housing, that was
The Address-Mr. A. Stewart an utter travesty of truth. I remember 1945, when every Liberal member in this country was promising housing at a few dollars a month. What is the situation today? In my city if you want a small flat of three or four rooms you have to pay $70, $80, $90 or $100 for it, while no provision at all is being made for the average person in this country whose wage is about $45 or $46 a week. The minister stated that increased housing in 1951 would have inflationary results. I am not going to argue with that statement. Conceivably it could be true. But he estimates that 85,000 houses will be completed this year. Most of them will be of the wrong type, because the houses we need in Canada this year, and almost every year, are for those in the low income brackets. What we find today is that people who can pay $10,000 and $12,000 as a down payment on a house are able to get the accommodation they need; but as I say, people whose average wage is $45 or $46 a week are completely out of the picture. Those are the people whom we are here to represent. I would have been much more pleased had the government put a ceiling on the cost of housing construction, in this sense: that they would have forbidden the construction of houses costing more than $15,000. Then we could have built up to 85,000 or 90,000 units of housing under that amount in Canada. What we have to get is a still further relaxation in the restrictions which have been imposed. In view of the improvement in the materials situation, about which the minister talks, I think it is time that extra one-sixth loan should be re-instituted.
There are two other matters of perhaps even more pressing importance to my constituents. One is the international situation. In a debate such as this not to discuss it is something like seeing Hamlet without the prince. Nevertheless, in view of the statement which was made today that we shall have a full debate on the international situation shortly, I intend to say nothing about it at this moment. Rather will I concentrate on the other matter, namely, the cost of living.
The policy of this government seems to be deliberately calculated to destroy the incentive to save amongst the people of Canada, and also to destroy their savings. Not only are savings being destroyed, but there is a constantly lowering standard of living in this country. Yesterday the leader of my group, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), told us that when he was in a bank he saw a girl enter and proceed to cash $200 worth of bonds, for which she got $198 or $196. But the facts of the situation are that when you translate those dollars

The Address-Mr. A. Stewart into purchasing power she really got only a little more than $100; yet she had paid over $200 for her bonds.
I noticed that yesterday in replying to the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Mac-Innis), who asked why prices are going up, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said, as reported at page 41 of Hansard:
Because there are people who have money they would rather not keep than get the thing they can obtain at a high price.
I mentioned this a year ago in a speech when I said that the fiscal policies of the government were such that people realized a dollar was better invested in goods than left in the bank to draw interest. When people see that the money value of the dollar is constantly declining they are going to buy goods, because goods will have some validity in a situation such as this. Therefore the government's policy is encouraging the inflation we see.
What were the suggestions which were given to us in the speech from the throne? There are two paragraphs, neither of them at all satisfactory. We are told:
The untl-infiationary measures already in force have checked the upward trend of prices of goods and services affected by their operation.
That is an extraordinary statement. I hold in my hand the Canadian Statistical Review for the month of September, and it gives the cost of living index. We are told that the upward trend of prices has been checked. The June figure was 184-1; the July figure was 187-6; the August figure 188-9. Lest the members of the government take any refuge in the figures of the wholesale price index, may I say that they are no better, and are just as significant. For June the wholesale price figure was 242-7. The July figure, the last one I have, was 244-2, which makes utter nonsense of statements such as those in the speech from the throne. We are told:
The concern of our people over the rising cost of living resulting from international and domestic inflationary pressures is fully shared by the government.
Well, by the amount of inaction which is apparent one would never know it. We are told:
Every measure will be taken which my ministers believe will be effective in counteracting inflation without impairing our free institutions.
What are the actions which are being taken? Well, first of all thousands of dollars of money are being squandered on the radio and in newspapers urging people to be thrifty, when these people have nothing at all to be thrifty with. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) told the women of this country

to cut down on the things they buy. They -are compelled to cut down on the things they buy because they have no alternative. I hold in my hand the financial statement of Canada Packers Limited, which came to my desk recently. The Minister of Finance tells the women of Canada to cut down on the things they have to buy, yet when I look at the statistical table in this financial statement I find that the people of Canada bought less meat per capita in 1950 than they bought in any year since 1941. I find in the same report a statement by the president of the company, Mr. J. S. McLean, as follows:
When purchasing power is high (as at present), North American housewives have a strong preference for beef, over other meats.
Why the president of the company made that statement in view of the tables which are appended to the report I do not know. He says that when purchasing power is high, as at present, the North American housewives prefer to purchase beef, but in 1950 the average per capita consumption of beef was 50.5 pounds. We have to go back to 1933, a depression year, to find a year when it was as low. Not only was less beef eaten last year than in any year since 1933, but last year the per capita consumption of mutton and lamb in this country was the lowest for the last generation, which again seems to make nonsense of Mr. McLean's statement.
I want to go back to the concrete measures which the government are suggesting. As a matter of fact in the speech from the throne there is only one measure. We are going to have some legislation to stop the fixing of resale prices. This may be done by an amendment to the Combines Investigation Act or by a separate bill. I presume the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) will introduce the bill. I imagine that every time that the Minister of Justice hears the word "combines" he shudders as though he were frightened. He has reason to be. When I remember the debate we had two years ago on the combines legislation and what the Minister of Justice did, I still think he was very lucky indeed to have spent Christmas in the bosom of his family rather than in the bowels of a penitentiary.
Now the government is going to stop resale fixed prices. They are not new. We have known about these prices for many years, but suddenly the combines investigation branch is going to get active. How wonderful! It acted with great speed, with great celerity this summer. In Winnipeg we had a situation where a bakery workers' union, finding that a store was cutting bread prices and fearing that as a result the living of its

members would be jeopardized, rightly or wrongly attempted to cut off supplies to that store. The citizenry of Winnipeg stopped them. But within a matter of days this combines investigation branch of ours was on its toes. It stepped into the picture and seized the union's books to find out if there was something illegal there. I suppose one must commend them for that; yet for years, ns we have known in Winnipeg, as the Minister of Justice has known as a resident of Winnipeg, we have had price fixing all over the place, and it has been drawn to his attention.
In my hand I hold some extracts from the minutes of the Winnipeg city council. It is understood that the Combines Investigation Act provides that the commissioner, whenever he has reason to believe that a combine exists to fix prices, may make such inquiries as he deems advisable. I am going to take several price fixing examples over the years. In 1945 the city of Winnipeg asked for tenders for insulators. The Canadian Ohio Brass Company and the Canadian Porcelain Company tendered, and both offered precisely the same tender, namely $229.50, for whatever unit it was that was needed. Then, in October, 1946, further tenders were asked for high voltage insulators, and we find again that the Canadian Ohio Brass Company and the Canadian Porcelain Company made identical tenders. What had been interesting now became coincidence. In January, 1949, when tenders were asked for heavy electrical insulators, the Canadian Ohio Brass Company quoted $237.50 and the Canadian Porcelain Company $237.50 per hundred. What started out as a matter of interest and had become a coincidence was fast becoming a habit, the sort of habit which leads one to believe that here was a combine existing to fix prices. The combines investigation branch could apparently ignore that but when a small union attempted to do something the branch thought was illegal, it very rapidly seized the books.
Then there are other examples affecting other companies, and this has been known to the government for some years. In May of 1940, when a tender for 50-kilowatt transformers was asked, both Northern Electric and General Electric quoted a price of $434.85. Again in November of that year General Electric, Filer-Smith and Northern Electric quoted $346.12 for a 37J-kilowatt transformer, and in May of 1946, when street lighting equipment was required, the minute of council stated-
For each class of equipment the companies quoted identical prices.
For 5,000-volt PILC cable Northern Electric, Canadian General Electric and Canada
The Address-Mr. A. Stewart Wire and Cable all quoted identical prices. Surely that is proof positive that a combine existed to fix and maintain prices. However, no action was taken against those companies. Perhaps they were too big or too powerful; it was so much easier to proceed against someone who was weak. In May of 1947 the record of city council states that since the price of cable among Canadian manufacturers was identical, the contract was given to Canada Wire and Cable. On October 6 the minute of council states:
Tenders dispensed with; all Canadian manufacturers sell their meters at the same price.
Apparently the combines investigation branch did not know these facts. In May of 1948 for power and control cable, Northern Electric, Canada Wire and Cable, Canadian General Electric and Automatic Electric quoted precisely the same price of $5,518.50. On November 1,	1948, for weatherproof
cable, Canada Wire and Cable, Canadian General Electric and Northern Electric quoted the same unit price of $41.83. Finally, in July of 1951, for power cable, Automatic Electric, Canadian General Electric, Northern Electric, Canada Wire and Cable and Canadian Conduits and Fittings all quoted the same price of $14,340. Surely this is far beyond the point of coincidence. On that occasion one of the younger, and certainly one of the most competent of the city aider-men, Alderman Orlikow, introduced a motion asking that the combines branch be asked to investigate this whole matter. In this case it had to be brought officially to the attention of the branch. I am still waiting to find out what has happened. I hope the minister may be able to make a statement upon his return. He is absent on official business today, but upon his return he will understand that we people of Winnipeg want an explanation.
Now, we have the government at last making up its mind. It is going to proceed against this evil of price-fixing. It is an evil it has known about for many years: Why is it doing this today? Is it doing so because it is a matter of principle, or is it opposed to price-fixing? Well, it may be, but it has never shown that in the past. It is proceeding today, not as a matter of principle, but as a matter of expediency. After all, I find so often that Liberal principles are other people's expedients.
And so we are going to have this-the only piece of legislation before us-in an attempt to do something about the cost of living. It may conceivably affect five per cent of the goods which enter into the cost of living index but I doubt if it will do much more.
We ask the government what policy they have to reduce the cost of living, or at least

The Address-Mr. A. Stewart not to allow it to become higher. The answer is that they have no idea; they are sterile. In fact it has been said in many places that they have stuck their heads into the sand, and thus have shown the barrenness of their understanding. The unhappy fact is that the government has no policy. I believe the government has not the faintest idea of what it should do, or how the people of Canada are suffering; and many of them are suffering most acutely.
The group I wish to discuss particularly are the veterans of Canada, and I hope every member in the house speaks about them. A few weeks ago I had an invitation to speak to the General Sir Sam Steele branch of the Canadian Legion. There I was received with great courtesy and, indeed, I spent a very pleasant afternoon. Unfortunately, however, I had to disagree with the chairman of the meeting, who leaned over backwards in his attempt to be fair. He said it was not his intention to put me on the spot. I saw no reason why I, as an elected representative of the people, should not be put on the spot; and the more often members of parliament, members of legislatures and of city councils are put on the spot by the people, the better our democracy will be. We must always remember that those who are putting us on the spot are the ones who are paying our wages. The chairman also said that the problems they wanted to discuss were old problems. Well, in a sense they may be as old as history; but penury, want and poverty are found too frequently today. Wherever people suffer those afflictions, these problems must be regarded as current and as pressing. Unhappily many of our veterans find themselves in that condition.
Now, under what conditions do we give veterans pensions in this country? In the first place there is an assumption that the pension of a veteran shall have some relationship to the earnings of unskilled labour. There is no such relationship today, however. I would be the first to agree that our veterans' legislation a few years ago was excellent, and among the best of its kind. But due to the government's decision to allow the cost of living to rise, the pension has no relationship at all today to the earnings of unskilled labour.
There is another basis, however. It is that the pension is to be compensation for injury or hurt received while defending us in this country, and while defending freedom. So we can see right away that there is a different basis for pensioners than for any other group. Many Canadians joined the armed services. Some of them were fortunate; they expended five or six years of their lives in the defence

of Canada. We can never give them back those years. Some were less fortunate. They lost limbs, or lost their vision, or lost their health in the defence of Canada. We can never make up that loss to them. Then there were those who lost everything and, I believe, died in the hope that a grateful country' would at least look after their widows and orphans. The obligation we owe to the veterans of Canada is a moral obligation, and it is one we dare not shirk. We have a moral responsibility to them, in the sense that we can never hope to repay a man who risks his life to save our necks. We have a moral responsibility in respect to those who were injured in any way on our behalf and are now unable to work, in that they must not be allowed to suffer because of that sacrifice.
That being so, the duty we owe to the veterans of Canada is a duty of honour. But under present conditions the government is defaulting, due, I submit, to its own fiscal policy. Its policy, in effect, has been to cut down the value of the pensions which veterans are receiving. Yet the veterans of Canada have never asked for favoured treatment at the expense of any other group. True, they have asked for an increase in pensions, but an increase which would be fair, an increase which would be legitimate. If it was right and proper that a married veteran in 1939 should get $100 for complete disability, then it is equally right and proper that a married veteran today should have the equivalent of the purchasing power of the $100 of that year. But such is far from the case. All that has been given to the veteran in the last few years was that which was given in 1948, when there was an increase of 25 per cent in the pension. Consider what this increase of 25 per cent means to one who is wholly incapacitated and receiving $125 per month. With a cost of living at 125 that might be fair enough, but with a cost of living at 190 it is worth only $66 and is therefore iniquitous. On that basis his food dollar is worth fifty cents; his clothing dollar is worth sixty cents and if the poor devil wants to build a house, his building dollar is worth forty-five cents. That runs through the whole scale of pensions, not only to those completely disabled but to those who are partially disabled. The veterans ask for a 33J per cent increase in their pension, and they have a right to do so. That is a right which cannot be controverted. It may be argued, although the veterans pointed out the fallacy of this, that in many cases this increase would mean only an additional $1.50 or $2 per month. If you are earning only a few dollars a week another $1.50 a month means that you can buy milk for one child for at least one week.

When we consider the situation we can only come to the conclusion that the veteran pensioners of this country are being cruelly treated. We are informed by the Toronto welfare council that today a single individual needs $93 a month on which to live, while a married man without children needs $153. What then is the position of the veteran who has lost everything and who is receiving only $125 per month for a 100 per cent disability pension? It is nothing less than shocking to contemplate.
When we take the figure entering into the government's cost of living index we find that out of his $125 he must pay $78 for food and $40 for rent, or a total of $118. That leaves him only $7 in a month to cover all other exigencies and expenses. How can he do that? How can he possibly live on that? He cannot do it; and the result is that he cuts down on food and living quarters in an attempt to live like a human being.
During the war years we said that we owed a debt of gratitude to these men. We were prepared to do anything for them so long as they would save our necks. Could there be anything more base than to allow that gratitude which was exhibited during the war to become wiped out by the passing of time? The obligation we owed to these men at the end of the war exists today. What I have said about pensions applies equally to war veterans allowances. Today the government is paying $40 to single men and $70 to married men, and the Legion is asking that the single rate be increased by 510 to $50 while the married rate be increased to $100. Even that sum will not permit them to live today.
Two or three years ago we began to hope that a better policy was being enunciated by the government when the then minister of veterans affairs (Mr. Gregg) said in May, 1948:
Those who have suffered as a result of death or disability from war service should be adequately compensated.
If that was true then, it is equally true today. It is the duty of this government on behalf of the people of Canada to look after the we'fare of our veterans. If these veterans find that they are still faced with a callous refusal to do anything to help them, the day will never come when they will forget; certainly they will never forgive such treatment.


Mr. G. S. White (Haslings-Peierborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with those who have spoken before me in congratulating the mover (Mr. Cauchon) and the seconder (Mr. Simmons) of the address, and
The Address-Mr. G. S. White also to join with those who have expressed gratification at the splendid recovery being made by His Majesty the King. I should like also to join with the people of Canada in expressing appreciation of the visit of Their Royal Highnesses The Princess Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh. It seems to me that the enthusiastic welcome extended to this couple throughout the country has been an ample demonstration to the world of the freedom and unity of the British commonwealth of nations which, in my opinion, is held together to a large degree by our loyalty to the common crown.
I should like to deal with veterans affairs for a few moments. I concur in the remarks of the previous speaker in so far as veterans affairs are concerned, and also those made earlier this afternoon by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks). Like many others in the house I was disappointed that no mention was made in the speech from the throne of an increase in the basic rate of pension or in the war veterans allowance. It is true that when this matter was brought to the attention of the minister yesterday he stated that veteran matters were being considered by the government, as well as the advisability of setting up the committee, and that an announcement would be made in a short time. Those of us who were here last session, and most of us were, will recall that a committee on veterans affairs was set up. If it is the intention of the minister to set up a committee on veterans affairs this year I suggest that he do not restrict the terms of reference as they were restricted for the previous committee. The hon. member for Royal has reviewed the debate which took place in the house on the restricted terms of reference and also what happened in the committee when an attempt was made to have the terms broadened.
Various briefs were presented to the committee by the Legion and other veterans' organizations, and they must have impressed upon the minister and the government the fact that the supplementary estimate introduced last year of $2 million was not acceptable to the Legion or the great majority of veterans and various other veterans' organizations. This supplementary estimate read:
To provide financial assistance after the thirty-first of May, 1951, in accordance with regulations to be made by the governor in council, to unemployable veterans who are in receipt of pension under the Pension Act for a disability which is a major factor contributing to their unemployability.
The Legion has expressed the opinion that this supplementary item has introduced the means test into the administration of pensions. That has been denied by the Minister

The Address-Mr. G. S. White of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) and other members of the government, but in my opinion this new procedure does introduce the means test. During this session this house will pass legislation dealing with old age pensions under which the means test for persons over seventy years of age will be removed; yet in the spring session a means test was introduced for the first time as far as veterans are concerned. It is often said in this house that veterans' pensions are a matter of right. They are given by statute and they should not be made the subject of a means test. A pension is only a small payment for services that have been well rendered. Speaking yesterday about veterans affairs the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) pointed out that the needs of those receiving military pensions should be a first claim upon the government. In the committee last session, as the house well knows, we were not permitted under the terms of reference to deal with pensions and the War Veterans Allowance Act. It had always appeared to me most unfortunate that in 1948, when an amendment was made to the Pension Act whereby the basic rate of pension was increased only 25 per cent, the government did not see its way clear to accept the motion made by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) under which the pension would have been increased 33J per cent. After all, at that time the basic rate of pension was only $75 a month for a single man, and naturally the 25 per cent increase was figured on $75, not on $100.
That committee after many interviews, and after hearing many officials from various departments, especially those from the bureau of statistics, decided that the same basis would be used to set any increase that had been used at the end of the first war, namely, a figure from the cost of living index and some figure with respect to the amount paid labour in the common labour market. Certainly they were not putting veterans' services on a very high scale when they were to be paid on the basis of the amount of wages paid in the common labour market. At the time the basic rate was set the cost of living index was about 160, and some of the officials who appeared before the committee expressed the hope that the index would remain only temporarily at that level, that in all likelihood it would recede, and therefore it would be most unfair to use an index of 160 in arriving at what -the basic rate of pension might be. They pointed out that once the rate was set it would never be decreased.
If we take the basic rate of pension at $75, as it existed in 1939 when the cost of living index was at 100, and then take the cost of

living index as it stood at the time the basic rate was changed in 1948, which was 160, and bring it into line with the wages then paid to the common labourer as shown by the officials of the bureau, the pension would have been increased a great deal more than was being asked for, 33J per cent. These veterans are not asking for anything of a charitable nature or anything in the nature of a handout. They are simply looking to their legally elected members of parliament who deal with these matters to see that their rate of pension is placed on a proper basis in accordance with the conditions that exist today.
It appears to me that many of the old practices that existed prior to the last war with respect to soldiers receiving pensions are creeping back again. I refer to veterans who today receive small pensions for 5, 10, 15 or 20 per cent disability. Many of them are being called in to the district offices. Many of the departmental doctors have become quite expert in finding that the disability has disappeared or has greatly improved, and the pension is reduced 5 or 10 per cent. It seems to me that in many cases the medical officials in the district offices pay little if any attention to the findings of the veteran's family doctor, nor do they pay much attention to what the veteran may say as to how his disability may effect his earning a living. It seems to me that too often, although the veteran is not altogether given a brush-off, the attention is not paid to him that should be paid in deciding whether or not his disability has increased or decreased. Of course if a case is taken up by the veteran's member of parliament then surprisingly enough in a number of cases there is quite a proper adjustment made. As I have often said before in the house, surely it should never be necessary for any veteran to have his member of parliament take up with the pension board any claim concerning a pension.
Every member of the house can recall cases in the past where the medical officers of the department have been entirely wrong, and some have been most shocking cases. In fact only this week I had occasion to write to the chairman of the pension board about a most distressing case in my own district where I am more than satisfied that the medical officers of the district office are entirely wrong. It seems to me that the medical officers are too much concerned with penny pinching. If there is to be any penny pinching why should it involve the veterans? I would say to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) that if all other departments of the government were as anxious to save pennies as they are in the pensions and war veterans allowances offices, many millions of dollars a year would be saved for the

taxpayers of Canada. When the minister speaks perhaps he will tell the house what is being done about the committee that he announced in the press would be set up to investigate certain charges made by the Canadian Legion with respect to Sunnybrook hospital. When the minister gives that information perhaps he will also tell the house what other branches or services, if any, of his department will be investigated by the committee.


Mr. Lapointe:: Oh, oh.


George Stanley White: The
minister can say "Oh, oh" if he wants to. If the minister wonders whether there is anything wrong all he needs to do is to attend a few meetings of the Legion.


Hugues Lapointe: I have.


George Stanley White: He will find out how much dissatisfaction there is with his department. He cannot laugh it off. He cannot brush it off. If he will go to the Legion meetings he will find out the great number of grievances there are so far as the pension department is concerned. I am speaking for my own district, and from what I hear from other members it is much the same in other districts.
The present high cost of living is hitting the veteran just as hard as it does anybody else. Whether the veteran has a small business of his own, is working on a salary or is purchasing his own home he is not especially concerned with the so-called cost of living index. He and his wife know only too well that it is impossible for them to make the payments on their house and buy the necessary food and clothing for their family, let alone have anything left for the so-called small luxuries of life or anything to save.
The government certainly did not help the veteran when the sales tax was increased by 25 per cent, or when an additional luxury tax was placed on many things which are not luxuries, such as electrical appliances and so on. Who today in Canada is going to say that an electric stove or refrigerator is a luxury? If these are necessities, why are they classed as luxuries and made subject to a tax?
In the speech from the throne there was a reference to certain legislation to be introduced. The reference is as follows:
The government has received an interim report from the committee studying the combines legislation recommending that suppliers of goods should be prohibited from requiring or inducing distributors to resell such goods at fixed or minimum resale prices.
You will be asked to consider legislation arising out of the committee's interim report.
The Address-Mr. Cosselin	-
I should like to ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) when he speaks in the house to tell us what investigations, if any, have been made or are being carried on under the Combines Act to ascertain whether or not a combine exists in the fixing of prices for such things as fuel oil, coal, gasoline, motorcars, electric stoves, refrigerators, washing machines and other electrical appliances. It seems, Mr. Speaker, that many people feel the prices of these commodities are entirely out of line with the cost of their production. It appears that someone is making huge profits. You can take an electrical appliance such as a stove or a refrigerator, which today retails for $300 or $400, and it certainly appears that the cost of the material, labour and so on does not nearly approach the retail price. I should like to know who gets the enormous difference between the two. The farmer, the white-collar worker, the Canadian on a fixed income, and the veteran are all looking to this parliament to do something about the high cost of living.
Yesterday my leader made this statement in the house, which appears at page 31 of Hansard:
The situation is so serious that I am confident the government will receive support for any sound measures it may now put forward which show a real hope of tackling this problem effectively at this time.
I am sure every member will agree with that statement. I intend to support the amendment moved by my leader which reads as follows:
We respectfully represent to Your Excellency that in the opinion of this house adequate steps should be taken to combat inflation and deal effectively with the high cost of living.


Mr. Henri A. Gosselin (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to rise in this house and participate in this debate. My first remarks are in congratulation of the mover (Mr. Cauchon) and seconder (Mr. Simmons), who have performed their tasks so well in the name of the constituencies which they represent. I am sure that their constituents are proud of them.
I shall be brief in my remarks, Mr. Speaker, but I feel it is my duty to express my opinion, in the name of those whom I represent, upon certain subjects. Many measures which will come before us during this session are of the utmost importance to the future of our country. Each and every member of this house must give careful consideration to these matters, regardless of politics.
At the present time we have the honour of having in our country Her Royal Highness The Princess, who has been received with tremendous enthusiasm in each and every
94	HOUSE OF
' The Address-Mr. Gosselin district. We are also greatly pleased to hear that His Majesty's health has improved, and we ask the Lord that his recovery may be continued. I wish also to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) who has so ably represented the people of Canada in foreign countries. According to reports he was received in European countries with dignity, and listened to with attention. His status as a statesman has been recognized, as well as his desire that liberty may be enjoyed by the people of all nations.
I shall not endeavour to go into detail concerning the meritorious deeds performed by our soldiers. We were extremely proud of them during the last two wars, and at the present time they are voluntarily showing the population of Canada and the world at large that we have a sincere desire for liberty amongst the nations. In saying this, Mr. Speaker, I want all members to realize that we must make sacrifices in order to help the United Nations carry out its purpose. Then our soldiers will realize that the Canadian people are behind them in the performance of their duties for the welfare of humanity. We are spending tremendous sums of money on national defence, but I am sure that every Canadian will discharge the obligation this government has placed upon him. It is the price we must pay to maintain the liberty for which we fought so valiantly in the last two wars.
Our veterans of the last two wars were highly honoured when Her Royal Highness The Princess visited this city a few days ago. I am sure the same honour will be accorded the veterans in other cities during this visit. I believe that each and every Canadian in this country is backing this House of Commons, which represents the Canadian people, in any effort it may make to maintain the high regard for Canada which exists throughout the world. This house will be asked to approve many important measures during this session, which I believe will prove to be one of the most important ever held. The world today is in a disturbed condition. Each and every country must act immediately, perhaps not with the success we desire but at least in an endeavour to carry on those principles for the future welfare of our people for which the United Nations stands. It is the younger element which we must protect for the future. This Canada of ours has a great future before it; and this future will be protected to the extent that the present government acts in all possible sincerity to maintain that for which we are fighting. Our younger element have their eyes on us; and it is their duty also to look to their representation in this


house, to see that we prepare a future for them which will be prosperous and worth while.
Since the opening of this session we have heard certain remarks of reproach concerning the high cost of living. I am one of those who accept the high cost of living, having experience in the past as an administrator of the town of Farnham, Quebec, which I had the honour to represent as mayor for many years. I recall the hard times that existed in those days when there was an unemployment situation and when there existed no such buying power as exists today. We have heard complaints from various people and in newscasts, and it has become common talk in the street that it costs a great deal to live. I will accept the fact that the high cost of living perhaps exceeds the revenue in certain districts and territories. But we must remember that this government is preparing to face that over which no country has control, namely the future. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) referred to the surplus which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) had at his disposal. I say to him that this has always been an important principle and I believe one that any businessman would adopt, namely to see that future contingencies in the way of expenses of which he is not at the moment aware are well taken care of. The Canadian people are accepting the principle of taxation on the same basis. When our bonds are put on sale to the public, they are bought immediately. Is that not sufficient proof that the Canadian people feel they have in the present government an administration which is looking to the future, when we may have hard times, as we have had in days gone by?
As to controls on various commodities, I immediately confess to you, Mr. Speaker, to this house and to the people at large in this country that I am not in favour of any control because I feel that the liberties for which we are fighting do not require control, which destroys the liberty we prize and for which we are fighting. Our Canadian people are honest. They require returns according to the administration of their business. There are different lines of control which might have been exercised; but at the present time, in the present circumstances, no one could have controlled or been aware of what would take place. It would be impossible today to impose controls on certain commodities which are necessary for life. We destroyed the black market through our principles of the day. We told our people that they could buy and have what was necessary without being exposed to black market conditions when we had controls. In our sister countries

we have the principle of control; and the example as shown under these principles should not be followed by the Canadian people. Therefore I believe the principles adopted by this government, with confidence in its people, are the ones we should follow, and that we should educate our people. And by the way, I must say they will be easily educated because the Canadian people have a conscience which cannot be destroyed by any organization or by any people in any other country. The people of Canada are well aware of what it costs a family to provide what is necessary for their table and I believe that they are acting in justice in selling their production so that each and every Canadian may be able to carry on that which is necessary in life. Is that not a principle of good administration? In my judgment the only just way to carry on is that which is being followed by the government under the leadership of our Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent).
We also have to look to the protection of our population. The present government instituted, in the last few sessions, social laws which should have been in existence long before. We have given to our younger element the family allowance which is administered throughout Canada, I believe, in the most efficient way possible. It provides for assistance to parents who are proud of their families. We have many social laws which we are carrying on and we should continue the principle, because it is an assurance that as it becomes impossible for one to continue in his way of living, he has a guarantee that there is something behind him which he paid for as a saving during the time when he was more prosperous. We have our unemployment insurance which prevented at a certain time not so long ago an excessive amount of hardship through unemployment. These small amounts the people have had were certainly of assistance in preventing hardship, especially in our larger families.
We are coming to what I believe to be one of the most important laws, and one which should have been brought before this house long before now. I refer to the old age pension legislation. The old age pension is a well deserved recompense for those who have built this country and who have increased its population, who have devoted themselves to each and every principle necessary to make Canada what it is today. As representatives of these people it is our duty to say to them: We recognize that it is time for us to give you that which you deserve, that which would make you feel proud and free of the hardships of the later days in life. It is not everyone who is so fortunate as to accumulate
The Address-Mr. Gosselin wealth or have the ability to save during the time in which he has been able to earn. That is something that cannot be controlled. I believe that every Canadian is sincere in the way he has carried on in life, in order to preserve that which he feels is necessary for his future. The present government, as was its duty, has established the principle of old age pensions without a means test so that at a certain age our old people would feel that they could live independently of charity, as the old age pension has been looked upon in the past. I have mentioned before in the house that to have the system of old age pensions regarded as charity was disastrous to the Canadian people. I am sure Canadians were not proud of that, and that our old people were not glad to apply for charity assistance. It was the duty of the government, which is administering the affairs of this country, to provide ways and means to grant our aged people a pension without a means test. It may be that they will ask us to subscribe a certain amount during prosperous times to build up the required amount. If we do that I am sure that the Canadian people will support this government, and they will be proud of our action. I believe every member of *the house will look upon it in the same way, because that is the only way it can be done, so that those who are less fortunate than others may be able to feel that the amount collected will be pooled to establish the fund necessary to grant pensions to those who deserve them in the future. So far as the younger element is concerned I do not know what principle we will follow; yet I feel that there will have to be a contribution made to build up the necessary finances to obviate any financial trouble in the administration of the law.
We should also turn our eyes to the natural resources of this country. The natural resources of Canada are known and recognized throughout the world. It is recognized that we have immense, valuable property which Providence has given us. We should devise ways and means to develop our resources in the interests of the Canadian people. We should pass such laws as will ensure that this development takes place, so that an ever-increasing population may feel that in Canada they have a future. The immigration policy we have carried out in the last few years has been designed with that end in view. We have selected immigrants who we believe will be an asset to this country. We believe they will comply with Canadian laws, and that they will feel that on entering Canada they
96	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Gosselin are entering a family circle in which they may bring up their children in the fear of God.
Under these principles Canada should exploit the natural resources, which are its responsibility to develop, for the welfare of the Canadian people and for those who wish to come here as Canadian citizens. It is our duty to carry out these principles. I sincerely feel that the future prosperity of Canada has no limits. We are just starting to develop the natural resources which are at our door. We must take advantage of every possibility and if necessary ask our people to subscribe through taxation the amounts necessary to develop our resources. We have natural resources of oil, of gold, of copper and of minerals of all kinds which are lying dormant waiting for development. Who is to develop them? I do not think there is any organization other than the present government which can act and act immediately for the welfare of the Canadian people and the coming generation.
Canada stands high among the United Nations and throughout the world. The visitors who come among us speak of our high standing. They say that Canada is a paradise, and they openly speak of its hospitality. Visitors and tourists from different nations come and tell us that in Canada they find a country that in the future will be one of the greatest nations of the world. Providence has given us those natural resources, and I am sure that every hon. member desires to see them exploited. By so doing we will provide in Canada a home of comfort for each of us. At the same time there are hard times in certain sections. That is something which occurs after every disastrous war. I believe the present government will find ways and means to prevent hard times amongst the Canadian people. I am sure they will see that justice is done in the administration of the affairs of this country. At the present time we have a situation which is disturbing. We must find ways and means of preventing dissatisfaction amongst our people. I believe it has been the policy of all public men not to create disturbance, dissatisfaction and discouragement amongst the people. It is the duty of every Canadian to render justice to his neighbours and to carry out the principle of being a good citizen. We should so act that our people may feel that we have a country to be proud of. These principles are brought to our attention by visitors. We should be proud to distribute to those people who at certain times may come here any publicity which may be made available to us. We must seek to tell them what takes place in this country, as compared with what


happens in other countries. We must point out to them the privileges we enjoy. We must act as a family, whether large or small, and work toward better understanding among all of us so that each member of the family will feel a sense of satisfaction and enjoyment with respect to the conditions under which it lives. The same principle should be followed in the House of Commons by hon. members from all the ridings. They must realize that it is their duty to tell of the advantages in Canada, to describe the satisfaction of living here and the preparations we make for the future.
I take great satisfaction from my association with the farming industry. Some may say that farmers are not prosperous. I will agree with an hon. member from western Canada who has said that differences may exist in returns of revenue, when those returns are compared with what we find in the east. However, I exercise my calling as a farmer, although I have had railroading experience. I look upon my activities on the farm with a great measure of pride, and as one who considers it an honour to till the soil. It is my view that the fundamental basis of prosperity in a country, as well as the guarantee of its financial stability, must be found on our farms. Today the farmer is part of a group in society which realizes its privileges and understands the advantages of experience gained on a farm.
May I congratulate the government upon its policy of farm development, with a view to bringing about an improvement in the condition of agriculture. I repeat that in my view farmers today are prosperous, in that they are receiving greater returns for the work they perform. It would be disastrous, however, if we failed to continue the assistance which has already been given to the farmers so they might have the necessary markets, thus making it possible to repay them for the labour they have expended. The Canadian population has seen fit to give reasonable protection to the farmer for the work he performs. I believe that protection must be carried forward, and that it may be done to an even greater extent by setting up refrigerating stations so that the product of the farms may be saved for a proper market, and thus bring about a better return for the welfare of our people. It is regrettable that in the past in some districts-and it still obtains in some places-at certain times of the year products of the farm had to be sold when the market was unfavourable. There was no way of conserving these products, and many times they were destroyed through exposure to the



IB, 1951

[Stage Direction]
weather. It is most necessary that the government look forward with the greatest of interest to seeing that things the farmers produce -and the production of which they would be prepared to increase-are protected for the market. Surely this would be one way of meeting the condition of inflation about which so much has been spoken.
I believe that additional production will have a most beneficial effect in bringing about a greater justice in prices. Let me say to the house, as on many occasions I have said to my constituents, that if the farmer can increase production while expending the same amount of work he can afford to sell at a cheaper price. At the same time he would receive a reasonable return for the work performed. On the other hand if he is expected to have his surplus production destroyed, due to lack of protection for his market or for his product, he is not encouraged to produce in future years. The farmer is looking to the government today to see that ways and means are provided whereby his product may be sold on the different markets of the world, and in those countries with which the government has had the advantage of negotiating treaties for the exchange of products.
Given a continuance of this condition I am sure there will be continued prosperity among our farmers. The products they make available to the working classes will receive greater protection, with the result that workers will feel satisfied in respect of the expenditure they must make for the maintenance of their families. The principle of helping agriculture could be developed also by giving further assistance to the farmers through the greater use of chemicals. This would bring about increased production and a greater return for the work they perform.
There are many subjects touched upon in the speech from the throne which could be discussed at length, and upon which hon. members could express opinions. I would speak in particular, however, of the suggestion that additional means of transportation be provided through the development of the St. Lawrence waterway system. If I were to give my support then, as a railroad man, I would be speaking against my own class of people. I feel sincerely, however, that in the development of a nation there are occasions when one should change his views so as to bring about speedy development and decrease the cost of transportation. It is well known that in Canada we have a first class system of railways, as well as a fine air transport system. Our waterways afford satisfactory means of transportation, and the oceans make it possible to take the produce of our country to other countries, as well as to import the
The Address-Mr. Gosselin products of those countries. Let us be proud of our railroad system because, as I have learned from literature on the subject, we have in Canada one of the most highly developed and most efficient transportation systems to be found anywhere in the world. Our two great railroad systems, the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific, have worked side by side to provide efficient and comfortable transportation for a population of fourteen million. Other countries with three or four times this population are not able to enjoy such efficient and comfortable transportation. These railroad companies should be given the necessary support so they can continue to provide this type of service and be able to help in the development of those areas of our country which have considerable natural resources and which at present have no transportation facilities. I believe we should be proud of our railroad companies and other companies that provide other types of transportation.
Everything cannot be done in a day. There are many questions that come before this government. I think most hon. members will agree that we have jumped almost a century ahead with the developments brought about by the last two wars. It is on this basis that we must act, and act as soon as possible. However, the necessary time must be given to consideration of problems that affect the welfare of our people. I repeat that if we do not give our younger element the advantages to which they are entitled to prepare themselves for the future, our names will be remembered as we would not want them to be remembered. There is one matter that should be of great interest to all hon. members, the provision for those incapacitated by invalidity and sickness. Every man who possesses a heart filled with the principles which have been taught for generations past must realize that provision will have to be made for those who are so unfortunate as to suffer from infirmities which make them unable to earn their own living. I hope this government will consider ways and means to provide legislation at this session to take care of these people. I consider this one of the most important things before us today, even more important than old age pensions. These people feel that they are being left aside by the masses of the people. It is a dishonour to the country that their care should be left to charity.
Another question that should be considered is the education of our people. I repeat that Canada has a great future, but that future will be possible only if our population are educated. An educated population means a country with high standards. It is the duty of this country to provide ways and means
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Hees of educating the people so there will be sufficient technicians to carry on the development of our natural resources, so those natural resources will be developed in this country and not sent as raw material to other countries to be brought back in the finished state. We should not have to call upon the technicians of other countries to come here and take charge of our Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Henri A. Gosselin: I had intended to say a few words in French, but since my time has been exhausted I want to say to the French-Canadian people of the country whom I have the honour to represent that on another occasion I shall attempt to make known their needs in their own language. I hope that what I have said today will be taken as having been said in all sincerity. I believe Canada has a wonderful future, but that future will be preserved only so long as each and every Canadian is treated with equality.


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the speakers who have preceded me in this debate in congratulating the mover, Mr. Cau-chon) and the seconder (Mr. Simmons) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I think they both did an excellent job, and the people in their ridings should be justly proud of their efforts.
Last summer, like most hon. members, I spent a great deal of time going around my riding and talking to the people whom I represent. I want to take advantage of this opportunity to tell the government what the people of Broadview think of how they are conducting the affairs of the country at the present time.
The people I represent are both worried and resentful. They are worried because ever-increasing prices make it impossible to make both ends meet. They are resentful because the government has refused to take adequate steps to control the ever-increasing rise in prices and keep the cost of living within reasonable bounds.
What my people cannot understand is how a government which, only a short time ago, was claiming that the price controls it had operated in wartime were a model of efficiency, and had saved the people of Canada $12 for every $1 expended in their operation, now stands idly by while prices climb higher every day. I talked to a great many housewives this! summer, and I found that they resent bitterly being told by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) that they must reduce their standard of living when, at the same time, they read in the newspapers that business profits are at an all-time high. The


minister suggests that working people should reduce their standard of living while corporations go on paying out larger and larger dividends to their shareholders.
I also talked to a great many workingmen, whose pay cheques are smaller now since the 20 per cent increase in the income tax has been in force, and the value of whose salaries has further been decreased by the 25 per cent increase in the sales tax. What these men cannot understand is why these taxes needed to be increased at all, because they have read in the newspapers that the expected revenue from both these tax increases is $283 million over a twelve-month period, while during the first five months of this fiscal year the government surplus has amounted to more than $500 million. If the government surplus continues to increase at this rate, it will amount to more than $1,200 million over a twelve-month period, or more than four times the amount that will be raised by the increases in the sales tax and the income tax added together. My people resent bitterly being overtaxed so that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) can produce a big surplus at the end of the year, and say "What a smart boy am I."
I also talked to many old age pensioners. I believe these people are in a really desperate plight, and how many of them manage to live at all is a mystery to me. The increase in the cost of living has reduced the value of their pension from $40 to $33 in the past two years, and its value is continuing to shrink every day. I think every fair-minded man or woman in this country believes that the old age pension should be increased to compensate for the rise in the cost of living.
Finally, I talked to war veterans, and I found that they were deeply shocked during the last session of parliament when the government refused to consider their appeal for an increase in their pension, while at the same time giving judges a substantial increase in both salary and pension. The excuse that was given for raising the salaries and pensions of the judges was that the increase in the cost of living made it impossible for them to live on what they were getting. A great many war veterans to whom I talked are wondering why salaries and pensions of appointees of the government must be kept level with the cost of living while they, who fought for their country and risked their lives, are told to tighten their belts.
Another thing which is very important to the people of my riding is the need for a universal contributory health insurance plan. I am very glad that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) is in the house at the present time, because now he

can hear what my people feel about this most important matter. What they want is to have a plan established so they can make regular contributions during their working years, and so avoid the crushing burdens which are now imposed by sickness and accident.
My people heard the Liberal party promise health insurance before the elections of 1945 and 1949, but when the elections were over these promises were conveniently forgotten. It seems to me that the government is now preparing to do the same thing for a third time. During the summer, on various occasions, the Minister of National Health and Welfare intimated that he was considering setting up a committee to examine the question of health insurance; not, mark you, at this session, but some time during the next year. The reason the setting up of the committee is being put off is obvious. It is so that the report which the committee would bring down, and on which the government would have to act, will not be produced until just before the next election. Then, once again, the promises of health insurance will come out in order to lure votes to Liberal candidates. If the Liberal party, by some great mischance, should happen to win the next election, the promises will once again be conveniently forgotten.
Now, why must this double-dealing with the people continue? The people of Canada want health insurance. In addition, the Canadian Medical Association is in favour of it, as evidenced by the statement of their president, Dr. Norman Gosse, while speaking in Toronto on May 25 last. On that occasion the Canadian Press carried the following report, referring to Dr. Gosse:
He told the Ontario Medical Association that he favoured co-operation between citizens, doctors and government, in developing health plans. He said the Canadian Medical Association believes citizens should pay their own contributions, if able to do so, with governments bearing the cost for persons unable to contribute.
While speaking in this house during the last session, as reported at page 2297 of Hansard, I outlined why, in my opinion, the plan in operation in Great Britain today is unsatisfactory. I went on to outline a plan that has proved to be successful in Sweden and other European countries during the past 25 years. I believe that plan would do an excellent job for Canada.
The plan I suggested would not interfere with the present doctor-patient relationship, but would simply provide an easier method for people to pay their bills for the health services they received. It calls for the patient to pay 25 per cent of the doctor, dentist or hospital bill, with the remaining 75 per cent 94699-71
The Address-Mr. Catherwood being paid out of a health insurance fund which is maintained by regular contributions from all the people who are able to contribute.
The 25 per cent paid by the patient removes the something-for-nothing aspect of the British plan, which has caused people who really do not need treatment to flock to the doctor's office. They have done so in such large numbers that the treatment they are able to receive is, of necessity, superficial. On the other hand the 25 per cent which the patient pays is not so much as to impose a severe financial burden on the individual or the family. It also ensures that the cost of the plan is kept to a minimum because only those who need treatment apply for it.
I believe one thing is abundantly plain, and that is that a health insurance plan is needed. The people say so; the Canadian Medical Association says so, and the Liberal government has said so before the last two elections. I believe the time has come to stop using health insurance as election bait, and then shelving it as soon as the election is over.
I have suggested a plan which has proven successful in other countries. If the minister finds objections to this plan, let him say what those objections are, and put forward a better plan. Six years have passed since the preelection promises of 1945, and I believe it is about time the government began keeping faith with the people on this very important matter.


Mr. A. Earl Catherwood (Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to take part in this throne speech debate, a privilege which I have accepted on every occasion during the time I have been in the House of Commons. Different interpretations can, of course, be taken from the throne speech. I believe perhaps we can best interpret it by the lack of what it contains, rather than what is specifically mentioned in it.
We were particularly pleased to listen to the mover (Mr. Cauchon) and the seconder (Mr. Simmons) make some comments with which we could agree. The hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Cauchon) made a statement concerning the unity between the English and French-speaking races of this country. This is an important consideration, and I believe every member of this house is happy that it does exist. We were also greatly pleased to hear the hon. member for Yukon-Mackenzie River (Mr. Simmons) tell in glowing terms of the wonderful future that exists in the northern part of this country. Speaking as he did with the experience of many years in that part of the country, we can all agree that what he said will have great importance in the future development of Canada.

The Address-Mr. Catherwood
There are one or two matters now, Mr. Speaker, with which I should like to deal specifically. One of these is the cost of living, which has been mentioned already by so many speakers. We all listened with a great deal of interest when the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) spoke in this house yesterday. We all hoped he would have some concrete suggestions to make concerning this most important matter. We listened also with a great deal of expectation when he spoke over the radio on September 4, but we were somewhat disappointed because at that time he had no concrete suggestions to present to the people of Canada as to how to curtail the high cost of living. On that occasion he did, in a very excellent manner, pour oil on the troubled waters of inflation. At the same time we noted that the official cost of living index was announced, and it was 1-3 points higher. On that occasion the Prime Minister stated that the indirect controls and actions the government had taken were the only methods that could properly combat inflation. The experience of the months since that time has proven this plan to be most ineffective. It is true that the present policies of the government meet with a great deal of favour in the Department of National Revenue and the Department of Finance. It is very encouraging to report a healthy surplus in the cash account, but we must remember that this surplus was built up at the cost of hardship upon the people of Canada.
As was pointed out by my leader in his speech yesterday it was never intended that this budget, when presented to parliament, was to be used for the purpose which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) intimated just a few days ago when he said the surplus would be used to make payments on the national debt. This increased taxation was intended for defence against the menace of communist aggression, and for no other purpose. The Canadian people accepted these taxes with that understanding. One thing is crystal clear, Mr. Speaker, and that is that the sales tax which was designed to increase the revenue has built up this huge surplus. It works a hardship upon those people who are least able to pay. It has not been used for the purpose for which it was authorized by parliament. As a result it has been one of the main factors in the increased cost of living, and has contributed greatly to the inflationary spiral.
I do feel that the Prime Minister was quite correct when he said we must produce more and buy less; that is the fundamental principle upon which we base our economy today. I believe his statement is sound, but the government is not being consistent in its

approach to this inflation problem when it allows a situation to exist which contributes to the very trouble they are so anxious to avoid. We have many indications of how this increased sales tax has added to the cost of living. For example, we could take motorcars. It has been mentioned already that in Canada we pay approximately 700 per cent more tax on a similar car than does a purchaser in the country to the south of us. We all know that an automobile is an essential part in our Canadian way of life. An automobile is needed on every farm and in every business. We do feel that this tax is exceptionally high.
I feel too, Mr. Speaker, that if this increase to 10 per cent sales tax were cut back by at least 50 per cent it would be a great step in relieving many thousands of people who are harassed by heavy taxes. I should like to refer to a statement made by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) when he spoke over the C.B.C. He said that it was right to leave an increase in Canada's industrial expansion for future generations, but that it was not desirable that that increase should be very great in so far as it was done at the uncompensated expense of the existing generation. I believe that is true.
I have also a comment made by the Winnipeg Tribune in which it says:
Readers of the Tribune will recall that this paper has criticized the government continuously since last spring for the increase in the sales tax from 8 to 10 per cent at a time when this additional revenue was not required in order to balance the budget. We maintained then and still maintain that this unnecessary addition to the sales tax has been an important factor in adding to everyone's cost of living. It is our opinion that parliament should admit the error of its ways and wipe out the recent increase in the sales tax.
Over a full year the boost of 2 per cent was calculated to yield an additional $125 million in revenue. Yet already, from all income sources, the government has a surplus of more than $500 million for the first five months of the fiscal year, better than $100 million a month. If Ottawa is really serious about checking the cost of living spiral, certainly here is a chance to demonstrate concern for the general consumer.
The sales tax structure in effect in Canada today gives every encouragement to inflation. When a dollar is worth approximately half what it was prior to the war, I feel it is the duty of the government to do something about it. I believe the course of the government in this matter is quite clear. Another serious situation that has risen as a result of government policies is the drastic reduction in tobacco sales, particularly cigarettes. As was stated at a meeting of the producers in southwestern Ontario, just one week ago today, even the bootleggers in that section are complaining that they have to reduce their price from $3.50 to $3.00 per carton.

That is a serious matter, when the bootleggers start to complain about the situation in regard to their bootleg sales. Those of us who represent constituencies in southwestern Ontario, particularly those that border on the United States, realize and can see with our own eyes what this importation, or least bootlegging, has meant-and what it will mean if it continues to exist-to the great tobacco industry that has been built up and which we must protect and maintain.
As was also pointed out by Mr. Lloyd Grant, who is a director of the flue-cured tobacco marketing association, one-half of the cigarettes that are smoked today in that area are of United States origin. A recent indication of the extent to which bootlegging is flourishing in another section of Canada was the seizure of a car outside of Montreal. The R.C.M.P. seized 288,000 cigarettes. It was estimated by the R.C.M.P. that the profit the bootlegger would get from that carload of cigarettes would be $1,500, and that he could still sell them for less than the cigarettes cost in Canada. We realize that once a set policy has been established, it is difficult for the government to change their regulations. But we also realize that it can be done. Recently, in fact at the beginning of this session, the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) announced a broadened loan policy to bolster the faltering housing program. That policy has now been put into effect, and I see no earthly reason why the Department of Finance or the Department of National Revenue cannot make a change with regard to this tobacco question.
A delegation headed by the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Anderson)-and Norfolk is perhaps the centre of the tobacco industry in Canada; those people realized how serious the situation was-met the Minister of Finance in September of this year, when a firmly negative answer was given to them. They were told that nothing could possibly be done until the budget was brought down in 1952; and it was intimated later that even then no change might be made. This is a blow to the producers, at a time when the growers in southwestern Ontario are harvesting perhaps the largest crop of tobacco in the history of that section of our country. The government's decision in refusing to face the facts will have no other result than to strike a most serious blow at the tobacco industry of Canada. I cannot agree with the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) when he says he has no fault to find with these taxes. I think he will agree with
The Address-Mr. Catherwood me when he knows that the tobacco marketing board has indicated that the point of diminishing returns has already been reached on the basis of a 17 per cent drop in the sales of cigarettes in the month of June. It was shown that, on this basis, over the period of twelve months the loss of revenue to the government-instead of an increase-would be $8 million, with a corresponding decrease to the producer of approximately $4 million. It was intimated in the spring of this year that the sales would not drop, but evidence has proven to the contrary.
One of the worst features of the effect of this additional tax is the lower prices the growers will be pressed to accept in their negotiations with the tobacco interests and the tobacco companies, and these negotiations are under way at the present time. Before the budget of 1951 the federal tax was $10 per thousand. That tax was increased in the spring to $12.54 per thousand. In the United States the tax on cigarettes is $3.50 per thousand. We therefore have a difference or a spread in taxation of over $9 a thousand on cigarettes. At that time it was predicted that the United States government would raise the levy on cigarettes by three cents per package, but this action has not materialized. As has been pointed out by many of the leading papers in that section of Ontario, the action of the government in levying such an inordinate and discriminatory tax against the tobacco industry has resulted in a bitterness which is growing and which will become more apparent as the seriousness of the situation is realized.
There is just one other matter with which I should like to deal, and it has been mentioned by many other members of this house. I do not think we can stress it too strongly. I refer to the basic pension for our veterans. It was referred to by my leader yesterday, and by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) and others when he introduced his notice of motion. I feel that hon. members should really take part and insist strongly that action be taken immediately in this regard. We feel that this is a matter of such great importance to the peace of mind and security of tens of thousands of our bumt-out pensioners across this country that the time has come when this government and this parliament must realize that we have a responsibility not only to the widows and the orphans of those Canadians who sleep in far-away lands, but to so many of the 165,000 disabled who are facing the future without sufficient income to provide their homes with the meagre necessities of life in this inflation era. Let it never be said of this parliament that we
ettOVlNClAL Link.

The Address-Mr. Knowles have failed in our duty to these our gallant veterans who gave so much that we as a nation might remain free.
I have discussed this matter with members of the Legion in my own home and at Legion meetings and I find, as I know all other hon. members have found, that these men are reasonable in their requests. They realize that the government has the responsibility of raising the money to meet its obligations. They understand that perfectly well, but they also realize that in this era of high costs the low basic income authorized under the Pension Act is totally inadequate; and while they are not asking for a large increase in the basic rate, they do insist that a fair and just amount, commensurate with present day costs, be immediately put into effect.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it will be a source of some slight satisfaction to the people of Canada that just about every hon. member taking part in the opening debate at this session is dealing in some way with the problem of the high cost of living. I fear, however, that even that slight satisfaction will be nullified, so far as the Canadian people are concerned, by the stand taken by the government in refusing, as it has done, to inaugurate a program of price controls and subsidies.
Hon. members from the opposition side of the house have done their best to lay before the government the seriousness of this problem as it affects the ordinary people of Canada. From the government side of the house we have had an attempt to dissolve the problem by making comparisons with other countries; but after all, that does not take away from the Canadian housewife the difficulty she faces every day and every week. In addition to that, we have had some high-sounding phrases and statements from the government side of the house, particularly on the part of those who say that they do not want controls because controls interfere with our way of life. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the issue cannot be sidestepped in that way. The plain fact of the matter is that high prices and economic tyranny are interfering now with the way of life, the morale and the sense of security of the Canadian people. The whole question that faces us in this parliament is this: Are we to allow the people of this country to be the victims of blind economic forces, or are we to apply the principles of democracy to our economy and insist that it be run in the name of the people and for their well-being? It is, as I have already said, a problem that is very real to every sector of the Canadian people; and in my view it ill behooves representatives of the people in the parliament of Canada to stand
IMr. Catherwood.l
here and suggest that there is nothing we can do to control otherwise blind economic forces.
I know there have been some suggestions from the government, but they are really of no value. References have been made to the anti-inflationary fiscal policies of the government, but their effect on the problem has been next to nothing. And when the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) referred to the one proposal that is to be laid before us this session, namely, the implementation of a part of the MacQuarrie report with respect to retail prices, even he admitted that it is not likely to make a very great dent in the high cost of living. Well, Mr. Speaker, I submit that is a position that should not be taken in a democratic parliament where we believe it is our duty and responsibility to concern ourselves with the things that affect the people whom we represent, and to do something about their problems
In fact, Mr. Speaker, I have that same sense of disappointment with respect to the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). As my colleague the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) said, anybody could vote for it, even the Prime Minister. It is just an amendment that suggests that adequate measures should be taken, but the leader of the opposition failed to state any specific measures to deal with this problem. It is not as if the situation had never occurred before in the experience of the leader of the opposition. I know of at least two previous occasions when he has moved amendments in this house calling for something to be done about the high cost of living without suggesting any specific proposal. On each of those two occasions this group moved a subamendment to his amendment spelling out the specific proposals of price controls and subsidies. On both of these previous occasions the leader of the opposition subsequently took part in the debate and said that of course that was included in what he had in mind when he moved his amendment. Having said that on those two previous occasions, I for one thought that when he moved his amendment at this session, dealing with the high cost of living, he would this time come forward with a specific proposal. But, like the Prime Minister, he just thinks that something should be done about it and fails to measure up to the responsibility which rests upon people who claim to represent the electors of Canada to suggest positive measures.
It is in that spirit; it is because of our feeling of responsibility to the people whom we represent, and because of the way in which the people of Canada express their

views through Gallup polls and in other ways, that we have laid before parliament not just pious utterances but the specific proposal that there should be launched a program of price controls and subsidies so as to equalize the burdens that our Canadian people are being called upon to bear at this time.
The other day when my leader was dealing with this matter, and had occasion to refer to statements made about the price control program in former years by the Right Hon. J. L. Ilsley and others, one member from the government side interjected a question to this effect: What did Mr. Ilsley say two or three years later? I want to deal with this for just a moment, Mr. Speaker, because there does seem to be a tendency just now to spread around in an academic fashion the notion that the situation is different; that somehow the very people who administered the price control program during world war II, and praised it to the skies, now have a different view. Well, I for one do not think that either Mr. Ilsley or Mr. Gordon was talking with his tongue in his cheek when he said what he did back in 1947, let alone when these gentlemen said what they did during the course of the war years. I think they meant what they said as to the effectiveness of that program in dealing with the emergency situation at that time.
We are faced with just as great an emergency now. We are in a period when our people are being called upon to bear great sacrifices, and the tragedy of this present time is that these sacrifices are impinging upon our people with a great degree of inequality. One of the main reasons that we ask now for a program of price controls and subsidies is to equalize the sacrifices our people are called upon to bear.
Practically every hon. member who has spoken in this debate and has dealt with the question of the cost of living has presented to parliament and to the government the plight of particular groups. I think it is well that we do this, both for the sake of the groups on whose behalf we speak and as a means of indicating to the government how widespread is the problem. There is one group I want to speak about in addition to the references I shall make to other groups that every hon. member has referred to. In this instance I refer to the railway workers of this country.
Hon. members will recall that slightly more than a year ago we were meeting here in a fall session to deal with a situation created by the railway strike of August, 1950. As a result of the bill that the government presented to parliament on that occasion the railway workers were ordered back to work and
The Address-Mr. Knowles their dispute with the companies was to be settled, if they did not settle it themselves within a certain period, by an arbitrator. Subsequently Mr. Justice Kellock of the Supreme Court of Canada was appointed as arbitrator and he settled 'the dispute with an award, a copy of which I have in my hand. I have had occasion previously to refer to some of the features of this award. Just now I shall refer to only one aspect of it.
When Mr. Justice Kellock awarded 7 cents an hour to the railway workers as of September 1, 1950, he pointed out that one of the reasons he chose that figure, or shall I say the reason he stopped at that figure, was that it was the maximum permitted by Bill No. 1 of the session of the fall of 1950. But Mr. Justice Kellock pointed out that on the basis of the relationship between the cost of living and the wages paid railway workers he should have been awarding them not 7 cents an hour, as at September 1, 1950, but 10-2 cents an hour. Now, Mr. Justice Kellock arrived at that figure because he did what my colleague from Cape Breton South referred to earlier in this debate. He accepted the 1948 wage and cost of living relationship on the part of railway workers as something of a norm, a standard that should be maintained. Both sides in the dispute had argued about that at the hearing. But the arbitrator accepted the contention of the railway workers that that 1948 relationship should be maintained, and therefore he pointed out that since the cost of living index on June 1, 1948, stood at 154-3, and had risen by September 1, 1950, to 169-8, or an increase of 10 per cent-I am talking now in percentages rather than in points-the railway workers required an increase of 10-2 cents an hour to maintain the same relationship they had in 1948; so when he gave them the 7 cents-and he says it in his report at page 42 of the mimeographed copy-he was giving them an amount which was already 3 * 2 cents an hour short of what they should have had to maintain their 1948 standard of living.
Well, what has happened since September 1, 1950, the date on the basis of which Mr. Justice Kellock made his award. The cost of living index at that time stood at 169-8. The latest figure we have, that issued on October 1, for September 1, 1951, is 189-8. I ask hon. members to note that that 189-8 is an increase of 35-5 points, which amounts to an increase of 23 per cent over the index figure in 1948, which Mr. Justice Kellock chose to treat as a normal year. On that basis it takes only a little bit of simple arithmetic to arrive at the fact that if, as Mr. Justice Kellock says, an increase of 10 per cent in the cost of living from June 1, 1948, to September 1, 1950, meant that the
104	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Knowles workers at that time should have had an increase of 10-2 cents an hour, then as of September 1, 1951-and not for any improvement in their position, but simply to hold that position-their total increase should have been 23-9 cents an hour.
They got 7 cents an hour out of last fall's Bill No. 1 and the subsequent award by Mr. Justice Kellock. Therefore not on the basis of any representations from trade unions or of something that a member of this party may say, but rather on the basis of an analysis of the situation by Mr. Justice Kellock of the Supreme Court of Canada, the railway workers of Canada are now short to the extent of 16-9 cents an hour, as compared with what they should have if they are only to maintain their cost of living and wqge relationship at that which obtained in 1948.
It is often said by some of those who wish to find fault with price controls that you cannot have price controls without wage control. So far as this group of workers is concerned, they already have wage control. They already have wage freezing, but without compensating price controls. Their wages were frozen for a period of two years, by act of this parliament. Yet we refuse to exercise our democratic right to control prices so as to protect what little improvement we gave to the railway workers by Bill No. 1 in the fall session of 1950.
On the basis of that, railway unions across Canada are at the present time passing resolutions and sending them to Ottawa. I believe they are sending them to all members of parliament. Those resolutions call upon the government to bring about a cost of living bonus for these railway workers, to bring them up to the position accepted by Mr. Justice Kellock as the norm or standard. I urge the government to take steps to meet this urgent request.
Oh, I know the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and others who profess to be trying to fight inflation do not like these appeals from the railway workers, from civil servants and others, for increased wages. But if the government refuses to do anything to control the cost of living there is no alternative for the workers but to ask for an improvement in their wage scale in order to meet the rising cost of living.
What I have outlined in pretty specific terms so far as the railway workers are concerned applies to organized workers, and to an even greater extent to unorganized workers right across this country. The value of the money they are getting is being confiscated by the rising cost of living. There is hardly a day in which I, for one, do not get a letter from some worker back home saying frankly that he would rather have the wages


he had two or three years ago, with the prices at that time, than to have the higher wages of today with the lesser purchasing value that goes with those wages.
Yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) went to some length to show that workers can earn by an hour of labour so much more of various items of food than was the case in certain earlier periods. I asked him if he could let me have the United States table that had inspired this research, which had come to his office. He was good enough to send it to me. It happens, however, to be a comparison of different years, so that one could hardly compare the two tables. I should like to point out that in his remarks yesterday the Prime Minister talked in terms of what industrial workers can purchase by way of food in terms of the hours they work. Well, the same thing could be said on the other side of the picture. The fact is that, due to technological improvements and all the rest of it, farmers and other groups in the community can get a little bit more for the hours they work than was the case some years ago, certainly more than was the case with our grandparents.
All that tables and statistics of that sort do is to prove that the workers and farmers of this country get some little advantage from the technological improvements that take place across the years. Our contention is that the whole of that advantage should go not to the privileged few but rather to the people of the country as a whole. Certainly there should be an improvement in the standard of living. That is one reason for our seeking shorter hours than used to be the case. But after you have made an analysis of these figures, and after you spread them on the record as the Prime Minister did, you get back to the simple fact that, as has been the experience of the people of this country, the money they have today, at today's prices, simply will not go around. We all know that thousands of families in this country have to deny themselves some of the foods they need, protective foods in particular. We know there are many other things our people have to go without because of the economic anarchy with which this government seems to be satisfied.
I say again that if we believe in democracy, if we believe in control by the people of those things that affect the people, then we should be seeking to control the economic affairs of this country and not let them control us.
As I pointed out, various hon. members have dealt with the impact of rising living costs as applied to different groups. I, too, wish to say a word about its effect upon another group, namely the old age pensioners.

As hon. members know, across the years I have been extremely interested in getting improvements in our old age pensions legislation and, in particular, getting rid of the means test as applied to old age pensions. On that basis it is a real thrill to know that in this session of parliament we are to be given the privilege of passing legislation which will take the means test away from old age pensions, at least so far as those of seventy years and over are concerned. But that thrill is certainly diminished by the realization that the amount of the pension we are going to give on a universal basis to Canadians of seventy years and over is now so greatly reduced in value. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) indicated a few moments ago the extent to which it has gone down in the past few years. In terms of the 1935-39 cost of living index $40 today is worth only $21.07. Furthermore if one wishes to take even a very brief period and look at the cost of living index as it stood in June 1950, when the parliamentary committee made its report, and consider the rise since then, he will see that it would take a little more than $46 today to equal what $40 would buy in June of 1950. And with the acceleration still going on I suggest that the amount paid should be not less than $50 a month. Or, as I said in June when the other pension measure was under consideration, in view of the rise that has taken place over the last two or three years I feel the amount of the pension should now be $60 a month; and I say that in asking for that we are simply asking for our older citizens a reasonably fair share of the wealth this country is now able to produce. We would still be giving them a percentage of the national wealth which is less than the percentage they represent of the total population. They are the ones who helped to build up the country to what it is, and I feel most strongly that this is not the time for the government or parliament to boast of what is being done. It is fine as far as it goes, getting rid of the means test in particular, at least for those seventy and over. It is a historical event and of great significance; but we should also be increasing the amount of the pension.
I emphasize the fact that whereas a couple of years ago those who were receiving the full $40 per month might not have complained that there was no increase in their income through the removal of the means test, the fact is that the cost of living being what it is today, even though there are many older Canadians who will benefit from this improved measure, some 28 per cent of those seventy years of age and over, namely those who are now getting the full $40 per month, will not receive any increase whatsoever. For 94699-8
The Address-Mr. Knowles their sakes in particular I feel that consideration should be given to increasing the amount of that pension.
Those who would have us believe that they are concerned about fighting inflation in every possible way will say that these appeals simply add to the problem. However, I suggest that if the government is not prepared to use its democratic right to control these economic forces in order to keep prices down, then the people have no alternative but to insist that there be an improvement in their income to enable them to meet these higher prices.
Since it also comes under the Department of National Health and Welfare I should like to say a word about health insurance. Like the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees), I am sorry the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) suggested that the committee to deal with this matter would be set up next year rather than at this fall session. I think it would have been a good idea for that committee to be meeting now so that we might get things rolling and so that it would not be too long before we have a health insurance act on the statute books of this country.
Since that is the position taken by the minister, that the committee will not be set up until the session of 1952, I urge him again to see that not only is it set up in 1952 but that it is set up early in that session so that we can get to work on this important problem in time to make a worth-while report, as I am sure the committee will to this parliament. I confess that there were times in the past when I criticized the government rather strongly for setting up committees because so often they had proved simply to be ways of shelving a problem. But in view of the fact that the parliamentary committee on old age pensions broke that tradition and presented a report on which action is being taken I would hope that things have turned around a bit and that the committee on health insurance will result in action. As other hon. members have pointed out, this is an extremely important problem in the lives of our people and I urge that there be no delay in dealing with it.
Another group that is feeling the effects of the rising cost of living very seriously is a group to which almost every hon. member who has spoken in this debate has referred, namely, our veterans. In this connection there are two groups with which we are concerned, those receiving disability pensions and those receiving veterans allowances. Like other hon. members I feel that it was most unfair-government spokesmen have tried to claim that it is not a means

The Address-Mr. Knowles test, but it certainly is just that-to introduce the means test into disability pensions. I feel that instead there should be an increase in the basic rates right across the board. I earnestly hope that the statement which the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) said yesterday would be made shortly will be made before too long, and that it will be to the effect that something will be done about the request of the Legion to increase these pensions by not less than 33$ per cent. I support that request wholeheartedly, on my own behalf and on behalf of the many branches of the Legion in Winnipeg which I met this fall. Even that increase will not result in any improvement in the position of the veterans as compared with what it was in 1948; it merely keeps their position in line with the higher cost of living we are facing today.
In addition I feel that the Legion and other veteran organizations in this country have been extremely moderate in their request that the war veterans allowance be increased to $50 for single veterans and $100 for married veterans. With the present-day cost of living what it is they might have asked for more, but in view of the sense of responsibility they have shown in asking for increases of such small magnitude I hope we will not be told that this matter will have to wait until 1952 for consideration. The time to deal with this problem is now, when it is impinging so greatly upon these people.
I indicated earlier this year to the Minister of Veterans Affairs that I hoped something would be done about the means test in connection with war veterans allowances, particularly as it affects veterans of seventy years of age and over. It is clear that those veterans will have the right to apply for old age pensions under the old age security legislation because there is to be no means test in that act, but under the War Veterans Allowance Act as it now stands, with the means test in it, once those veterans draw old age pensions their war veterans allowances will be cut down, in some cases by an amount equal to the old age pension that they draw. When one considers the large number of Canadians who will get a real increase in the amount of money they receive, who will see a real improvement in their economic position because of the old age security legislation, it really is a tragedy to realize that the one large group who will not get any improvement at all is of all people those war veterans in receipt of the burnt-out pension. Whatever else is done it does seem to me that the means test should come off the burnt-out pension, certainly for those seventy years of age and over.


Consideration should also be given to the widows receiving this allowance, which at the present time is only $40.41 per month. They too have been most moderate in their requests for an increase, as well as in the other requests they have made. I hope the government will not try to use the excuse that as this session was called to deal with other matters there will not be time to deal with these problems. This is a session of the parliament of Canada. We are meeting at a time when serious problems are facing our people, and such problems as impinge upon their lives should be dealt with now.
I might have said when I got to my feet that it was not my intention to say anything new. Obviously I have carried out that thought. But the fact is that we have no alternative but to keep hammering away at those points which are so burdensome to our people. I have talked of railroad workers, old age pensioners, veterans and members of other groups. All of their problems tie in to the one great problem of the cost of living. As I see it, behind it all there is this fundamental question: Are we going to claim that we are a democratic country; are we going to claim that we are in control of the affairs of this country, but let the government sit here and do nothing; or is it not our responsibility to call upon this government in the name of democracy to do something to control economic forces so that our people will not live under economic tyranny and in fear and uncertainty, but may enjoy something of that security, something of that standard of living which it is their right to enjoy because of the wealth they produce?


Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on rising to speak in this chamber for the first time I am conscious of the great privilege members of this house have in the opportunity to play some part in discussing the public affairs of our country in an attempt, if not to mould the destiny of our people, at least to direct the attention of the government of the day to some of the pressing problems that affect Canadian citizens. No one coming here for the first time can fail to be impressed by the architectural beauty of this chamber and the majestic dignity of the parliament building. No one can fail to be impressed by the history behind it all. Here is the centre of the political life of our country. Here is the repository of our great traditions. In this chamber and in the one which was destroyed by fire more than thirty years ago have been evolved the policies that have determined the course of the Canadian nation since confederation. Here great leaders of the past have fought their wordy battles. Here have been decided the great issues of war and peace.

Now by a happy chance and by the decision of the electors of Winnipeg South Centre, to whom I am very grateful, it is my privilege to participate in the deliberations of this august assembly. I have listened with interest and close attention to the proceedings thus far. I have read with care the speech from the throne. I feel, as has been expressed by other hon. members in this house, that there are some grave omissions in that speech. In particular I regret that no intimation has been given of any special attention to the request of the Canadian Legion and other veterans' organizations for an increase in the basic rate of pension. How important that issue is to the veterans of this country should be obvious to all. Before coming here a week ago I attended several meetings in the city of Winnipeg with members of the Legion. The Valour Road branch gave the entire evening to the discussion of this particular problem. The executive of Winnipeg branch No. 1 gave its attention to it. So did the executive of the imperial veterans, the executive of the branch adjoining Winnipeg branch No. 1, Weston and Brooklands, and also a large meeting of the St. James branch of the Legion. In addition, I have received letters from other branches. This is a grave issue with the veterans of this country. They are aroused over the matter, and they are continuing to send their representations to us in this house.
I was impressed when I read the accounts of the representations made by the dominion command of the Canadian Legion to the committee of the house that investigated some portion of veterans affairs during the last session. I think great credit is due the representatives of the Legion for the magnificent presentation they made. Public opinion, as expressed by editorials in the press of the country, has been solidly behind the Legion representations. That support from the public would not have been forthcoming if it had not been for the fact that the Legion's past record has been excellent. Its requests have been moderate. Its representations have been made in a courteous manner and on a high level. The previous good reputation of the Legion has been maintained and enhanced by the action of its representatives during the recent meetings with the committee of the house.
We must not forget that many long years of struggle were undertaken by veterans' organizations in this country before the claims of the pensioners were fully established. A commission was set up to investigate the problem. A great number of meetings of veterans' representatives have been held with various veterans' committees of this house, and over the course of the years a long 94699-82
The Address-Mr. Churchill struggle was undertaken before veterans' pensions were established on a proper level. It is distressing to members of the Canadian Legion at the present time to find that some of that work over the years is now suffering because of the present situation.
It appeared to me, as I read the record of last spring's representations to the committee here, that the Legion was fighting a rearguard action. A plan had already been drawn up, a policy determined in advance, and I failed to discover in the reports I read that any modification of the prearranged plan was likely to take place. In fact to many of the veterans themselves the $2 million grant was considered to be put forward as the type of suggestion that could not be refused. All honour then to those pensioners across Canada who, although likely to benefit from the proposed plan, have publicly denounced it as unsound.
My own attitude toward the question of veterans pensions can be briefly given. 1 have given it to the veterans whom I have met, and will continue to do so on any occasion when I meet with them. I subscribe completely to the Legion's stand on these matters.
I think pensions should be given as of right I consider the present arrangement to be a means test which should be resisted and rejected because it alters fundamentally the whole basis on which pensions have hitherto stood. I reject the assumption that I read in the press and in these committee reports that 90 per cent of the disability pensioners are fully employed. That is merely an estimate based on a very small sampling of about
2,000	individuals or about 2 per cent of the total, a small Gallup poll. I believe disability pensions should be restored to the position they were in twelve years ago. As the dollar depreciates, pensions should be raised so that their real value remains the same. Their real value was set as low as was consistent with decency, and if that real value is not restored the Canadian nation will have broken faith with its veterans.
I grant, Mr. Speaker, that the whole issue is charged with emotion when one considers the plight of many veterans. I suppose everyone here knows someone who suffered during the war and for whose suffering no adequate recompense can ever be made. For every pensioner who, in the opinion of some persons, may be drawing a pension for an apparently minor affliction we can name hundreds who know nothing but daily pain as a result of war wounds; yet despite their troubles they are courageously and doggedly making their way through life, working at
108	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Churchill their jobs when they have them, supporting their families and maintaining their independence.
My impression of the veterans throughout this country is that he wants to maintain his independence, and that is why the request has gone forward for an increase in the basic pension rate. Granting that many of these men are employed-and more power and honour to them-the pension makes a distinct difference in their standard of living. It is the pension on which they rely for some of those essentials which otherwise might not be provided for. In some instances that pension, small though it may be, is used for insurance purposes, and in other instances it is set aside for some of those hazards of life that strike every family. When the pension is reduced in its buying power as it is now, the security of the pensioner is partially destroyed.
As I said, the whole issue is charged with emotion, but let us look at it in another way. Is the burden of disability pensions too much for our country? How many pensioners are there? In the first war some 600,000 of our men were under arms. About 60,000 were killed and 180,000 were wounded. In the second war over a million men were in uniform. Of those, 42,000 were killed and about
126,000	were wounded. If the same proportion of casualties had occurred in the second war as in the first, if all the first war wounded were still living, we would have a pension roll of about 400,000. We have only 161,000 or 162,000 pensioners from both wars. Regrettably the pension list is now being added to by casualties coming from Korea.
You will recall that the Canadian forces of the second war were not engaged against the enemy in as great numbers or for the same period as in the first war. The result is that the combined pensioners of the two wars now amount to that figure of 162,000. This amounts to about one and one-sixth per cent of our population. So far as first war veterans are concerned, the burden on the country is decreasing. In the last ten years the pensioners have been fading away at the rate of one thousand a year. This decrease will continue rapidly in the two succeeding decades, for very few of the first war veterans are now under 50 years of age. The peak of the second war pensioners has perhaps not yet been reached, for some veterans are still pressing their claims. Any increase in their number, however, will be balanced by the deaths of the first war pensioners.
In actual money, how burdensome on our country is the cost of disability pensions? I 

am restricting my remarks to disability pensions. I have similar regard for those on war veterans allowance, but I wish to concentrate my attention at this moment on disability pensioners. The total cost is about $68 million in round figures. The average payment would work out at about $35 per pensioner per month. Many of them get less. When you contrast $68 million with the gross national product of our country or with the total revenue of the federal government, it is almost an insignificant sum. When you contrast $68 million with the surplus that occurred in government finances last spring, it is not a very large figure. If you consider the cost of veterans pensions on a per capita basis they work out at about $5 per year for every man, woman and child in this country, or about one and one-third cents per day. Again this is an insignificant sum in return for the sacrifice made by the pensioner.
As a nation we cannot expect our young men to volunteer for dangerous duty at this time if we show by our treatment of the pensioners that neglect and economic distress will be their future if they survive the perils abroad. Surely we should assure every serviceman that in return for his sacrifice we will guarantee him security in the future, that we will watch over and care for his dependents if his life is forfeited. As a nation, are we giving him that assurance now? I think we are not. I believe one of our troubles with regard to the enlistment of young men in our services now can be traced back to our treatment of the veterans, certainly of the first world war and now of the second world war. You cannot, over a period of thirty odd years, treat lightly the sacrifices made by men on the battlefield and expect their sons and relatives to come forward with the same zeal and initiative that was shown in August, 1914. Surely from the national interest, if for no other reason, we should see that our pensioners are looked after. In my opinion no man can render a greater service to his country than service in the face of the enemy. I do not wish to minimize the service performed elsewhere, and I know from experience there is a tremendous strain involved in other duties than those at the front, but there is a great gulf between national service without danger to life and national service under conditions where the next moment may be your last on earth. The veteran, and in particular the disability pensioner, is the man who has given that greater service. He deserves the best treatment the state can afford. The modern nation that is Canada is founded upon the rock of the veterans of two wars. Canadian national spirit has sprung not from the speeches and

writings of politicians but from the blood of Canadian fighting men who fought and fell. It is no wonder that the solid core of selfreliant Canadian citizens is to be found in the veteran population of this country. The factors that make for great citizenship are the very ones exemplified in the lives of our pensioners: courage, devotion to duty and sacrifice.
The reason I dwell upon this question of the pension for the disability pensioner is that I have been impressed by the feeling of the pensioners in the city of Winnipeg and elsewhere with regard to the importance of this problem. It is not something that oan be lightly brushed aside. I think it is regrettable that the Canadian Legion and other veterans' bodies should be forced into a position where they almost have to beg for consideration, particularly with respect to the veterans of the first world war. Many of them are now reaching the age where their needs increase. If they have been employed, they are reaching the end of their years of employment.
On Sunday I made a pilgrimage to the peace tower. I had not seen it for sixteen or seventeen years. I went to that place which has rightly been termed the national shrine of Canada and spent an hour there looking at all the emblems carved in
The Address-Mr. Churchill imperishable stone, at the Book of Remembrance resting on the altar, and in reading over again the story of Canada's great effort in the period from 1914 to 1918. The same great effort was put forward in the period from 1939 to 1945; and in time similar recognition of Canada's sacrifice and effort will be made with respect to those who suffered and died in the second great war. As I moved slowly around that chamber I came to the last two tablets on which were inscribed the statistical record of those who served; and as I compared the number who served with the number who suffered either death or wounds, I was struck with the percentage of those who became casualties out of the total number of those who served overseas. I was particularly struck with the burden that fell upon the infantryman. I hastily worked out the percentage. Of those who got to England and into France and the low countries, 68 per cent became casualties. That was the price paid by the men who went to war. As a nation we cannot afford to neglect that type of sacrifice.
On motion of Mr. Herridge the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At seven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of ithe house passed on October 12, 1951.
[Stage Direction]


Wednesday, October 17, 1951